From: Subhashini Rao Beerisetty <subhashbeerisetty@gmail.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc: "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
"Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kernelnewbies <kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org>
Subject: Re: general protection fault vs Oops
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 11:15:34 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPY=qRQez4JRLGcwBq_3_AGmtH36FRrKjhCWvkhrnQxvBJEnOw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpXzeMjAUW0LNMpGf+bqykU8fjOJmy=CDdNEPQNpSB4raA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:16 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 9:16 AM Subhashini Rao Beerisetty
> <subhashbeerisetty@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, those are out-of-tree modules. Basically, my question is, in
> > general what is the difference between 'general protection fault' and
> > 'Oops' failure in kernel mode.
>
> For your case, they are likely just different consequences of a same
> memory error. Let's assume it is a use-after-free, the behavior is UAF
> is undefined: If that memory freed by kernel is also unmapped from
> kernel address space, you would get a page fault when using it
> afterward, that is an Oops. Or if that memory freed by kernel gets
> reallocated and remapped as read-only, you would get a general
> protection error when you writing to it afterward.
Cool, thanks for the clarification.
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org
https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-18 5:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-16 12:35 general protection fault vs Oops Subhashini Rao Beerisetty
2020-05-16 13:53 ` Valdis Klētnieks
2020-05-16 15:10 ` Subhashini Rao Beerisetty
2020-05-16 15:59 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-05-16 16:15 ` Subhashini Rao Beerisetty
2020-05-17 20:46 ` Cong Wang
2020-05-18 5:45 ` Subhashini Rao Beerisetty [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='CAPY=qRQez4JRLGcwBq_3_AGmtH36FRrKjhCWvkhrnQxvBJEnOw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=subhashbeerisetty@gmail.com \
--cc=kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).