Re: Segfault on the i386 enter instruction

[Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>]

In-Reply-To: <200605161132.18610.ak@suse.de>

On Tue, 16 May 2006 11:32:18 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:

> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 04:29, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > In-Reply-To: <44676F42.7080907@aknet.ru>
> > 
> > On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:56:18 +0400, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> > 
> > > Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > Handling it like you expect would require to disassemble 
> > > > the function in the page fault handler and it's probably not 
> > > > worth doing that for this weird case.
> > > Just wondering, is this case really that weird?
> > > In fact, the check against %esp that the kernel
> > > does, looks strange. I realize that it can catch a
> > > (very rare) user-space bug of accessing below %esp, but
> > > other than that it looks redundant (IMHO) and as soon as
> > > it triggers the false-positives, what is it really good for?
> > 
> > I can't get a SIGSEGV on any native i386 kernel, not even when
> > running on AMD64.  It only happens on native x86_64 kernels.
> 
> I reproduced the original SIGSEGV on several i386 kernels.

OK, I got SIGSEGV on a 2.6.9 i386 kernel in addition to ia32 mode on x86_64.
But it doesn't happen on any recent 2.6, even with "enter $65535,$0".
Digging, I found the stack vma is 22 pages (88k) on recent i386
kernels while it's only 8k on 2.6.9 and 12k in x86_64 ia32 emulation.
So you have to go deeper into the stack before you will hit this on
recent i386 kernels.
 
> > Intel says nothing about a write check.  Is that a mistake in the manual
> > or is that something only AMD64 does, and then only in long mode?
> 
> In 98+% of all cases when Intel and AMD documentation differ
> in subtle detail it's a documentation bug.

Yeah, that's why it's good to have both on hand.  But sometimes it can be
hard to tell which one is wrong. :)


BTW one easy way to fix this bug would be to enlarge the window for
access below the stack pointer to allow for the largest possible enter
instruction, i.e. "enter $65535,$31".  On x86_64 that would be 65536+256
instead of the current 128 bytes.

-- 
Chuck
"The x86 isn't all that complex -- it just doesn't make a lot of sense."
                                                        -- Mike Johnson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/