From: greg@kroah•com (Greg KH)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm: Remove early stack deallocation from restore_user_regs
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:16:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150109191647.GA1933@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150109172035.GZ12302@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 05:20:35PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 05:06:54PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On 09/01/15 16:46, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:12:38PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > >> Currently restore_user_regs deallocates the SVC stack early in
> > >> its execution and relies on no exception being taken between
> > >> the deallocation and the registers being restored. The introduction
> > >> of a default FIQ handler that also uses the SVC stack breaks this
> > >> assumption and can result in corrupted register state.
> > >>
> > >> This patch works around the problem by removing the early
> > >> stack deallocation and using r2 as a temporary instead. I have
> > >> not found a way to do this without introducing an extra mov
> > >> instruction to the macro.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro•org>
> > >> ---
> > >
> > > Please put it in the patch system, thanks.
> >
> > Will do.
> >
> >
> > > I think we should queue
> > > this one for stable too, as I think we need this for v3.18
> > > (as a result of c0e7f7ee717e2b4c5791e7422424c96b5008c39e,
> > > ARM: 8150/3: fiq: Replace default FIQ handler)?
> >
> > It's a close call.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Before 8150/3 the system would probably crash if the default FIQ handler
> > ran. After 8150/3 the system is also likely to crash since there's no
> > code hooked into the handler in v3.18 that can clear the source of FIQ
> > leaving us stuck re-entering the FIQ handler.
> >
> > Nevertheless, this is a nasty gremlin to leave for backporters (it
> > wasn't easy to find) so I'd be very happy to Cc: stable and see what
> > they think.
>
> Well, we could ask Greg now. It's not a regression (as nothing makes
> use of the previously merged changes yet), but it is a nasty latent bug
> which we could easily solve.
>
> Having thought about it some more, I'm tempted to say... leave the
> stable tag off it, and we can make the decision later - after it's had
> a chance to really prove itself to a much wider audience. That'd be
> the lowest risk for the 3.18 stable tree.
That sounds like a good idea, you can always email stable@ to let us
know of a patch we should add at a later time.
thanks,
greg k-h
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-09 19:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-12 11:11 [RFC PATCH] arm: Remove early stack deallocation from restore_user_regs Daniel Thompson
2015-01-05 15:12 ` [PATCH] " Daniel Thompson
2015-01-09 16:46 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-01-09 17:06 ` Daniel Thompson
2015-01-09 17:20 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-01-09 19:16 ` Greg KH [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150109191647.GA1933@kroah.com \
--to=greg@kroah$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox