this is a sad joke for a 'thesis' i'm afraid. you should have kept true to your word and kept us in the loop about your findings to avoid all these errors.

You should also keep true to your word and assume defeat as I've found ways to bypass RAP on the public test patch?

that said, what do irq stacks have to do with unreadable kstacks? what makes you think the interrupted process stacks remains readable when the kernel switch to the irq stack?

I didn't think that. Nor do I know why you'd think I said anything that even resembles that

"Interrupt handlers are executed when the kernel is in interrupt context, i.e., it is not associated with a task, therefore, the unreadable kernel stack feature (prevents cross-task information leaks and corruption) is insufficient."

Maybe, just maybe, irq stacks were left readable. All of this would've been easier to determine if I was testing on the 'real thing', which you didn't let me.

left readable when? when not using them? what made you think they had been?

Yes. Why wouldn't I think that? "The unreadable kernel stack feature prevents cross-task information leaks and corruption"

and how does this imply what you stated so authoritatively?

The "cross-task" keyword sounds to me that you're talking about protecting a task's kernel stack