From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765453AbdEWW7T (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 May 2017 18:59:19 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.15]:48255 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765007AbdEWW7R (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 May 2017 18:59:17 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,rostedt@goodmis.org,:::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:966:988:989:1183:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2196:2199:2393:2553:2559:2562:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4385:4559:5007:6117:6261:7875:10004:10400:10848:10967:11026:11232:11658:11914:12043:12438:12555:12740:12760:12895:13069:13161:13229:13311:13357:13439:13972:14181:14659:14721:21080:21627:30003:30012:30054:30090:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:4,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: grade95_33b18d1fe8b63 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2534 Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 18:59:12 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Kees Cook , LKML , x86@kernel.org, Masami Hiramatsu , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [WARNING] x86/mm: Found insecure W+X mapping at address .. Message-ID: <20170523185912.05346057@vmware.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 23 May 2017 22:48:19 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > It's not KPROBES, it's the new fangled ftrace trampoline code. I > added a few printks. All the leaked W+X mappings are allocated via > this callchain: The trampoline code isn't new. But it has new users because of the introduction to synchronize_rcu_tasks(), and there was a bug I fixed in -rc2 that moved it down because the test was run before synchronize_rcu_tasks() was functional. Is this still a bug in rc2? -- Steve > > [ 2.620465] module_alloc+0x8e/0xa0 > [ 2.620764] ? __fentry__+0x10/0x10 > [ 2.621049] arch_ftrace_update_trampoline+0x9f/0x220 > [ 2.621453] ? ftrace_caller+0x64/0x64 > [ 2.621754] ? __fentry__+0x10/0x10 > [ 2.622047] ftrace_startup+0x90/0x200 > [ 2.622352] register_ftrace_function+0x50/0x70 > [ 2.622725] function_trace_init+0x6d/0xa0 > [ 2.623057] trace_selftest_startup_function+0x63/0x4a8 > [ 2.623477] run_tracer_selftest+0xfe/0x16c > [ 2.623813] init_trace_selftests+0x5d/0x103 > [ 2.624163] ? set_tracepoint_printk+0x3d/0x3d > [ 2.624525] do_one_initcall+0x44/0x170 > [ 2.624845] kernel_init_freeable+0x1ff/0x287 > [ 2.625199] ? rest_init+0x140/0x140 > [ 2.625491] kernel_init+0xe/0x110 > [ 2.625775] ret_from_fork+0x2e/0x40 > > Thanks, > > tglx