On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 12:18:18AM -0800, Zhao Forrest wrote:
> On 11/28/06, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> I first need to contact the author of test case if we could send the
> >> test case to open source. The test case is called "crashme",
> >
> >Is that the classical crashme as found in LTP or an enhanced one?
> >Do you run it in a special way? Is the crash reproducible?
> >
> >We normally run crashme regularly as part of LTP, Cerberus etc.
> >so at least any obvious bugs should in theory be caught.
> >
>
> Let me change the subject of this thread.
> I just read our private version of crashme. It's based on crashme
> version 2.4 and add some logging capability, no other enhancement. So
> it should be the same as crashme in LTP.
>
> It is solidly reproducible within 3 minutes of running crashme.
>
> The current status is: we know it's a commit between 2.6.16.4 and
> 2.6.16.5 that introduce this bug.
>
> Our network is very slow(only 5-6K/second). So we'll start the
> git-bisect tomorrow after finishing downloading the 2.6.16 stable git
> tree.
Thanks for your report.
A git-bisect might be a bit of overkill considering that there were only
two patches applied beween 2.6.16.4 and 2.6.16.5:
Andi Kleen (2):
x86_64: Clean up execve
x86_64: When user could have changed RIP always force IRET (CVE-2006-0744)
I've attached both patches.
Could you manually bisect first applying "x86_64: Clean up execve"
(patch-2.6.16.4-5-1) against 2.6.16.4?
Then we'll know which of Andi's pacthes caused this bug.
> Thanks,
> Forrest
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
patch-2.6.16.4-5-1
Description: Text document
patch-2.6.16.4-5-2
Description: Text document
|
