linux-kernel - Re: [crash, bisected] Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:32:38 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
Subject: Re: [crash, bisected] Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86_64: Fold pda into per cpu area

Mike Travis <travis@....com> writes:

> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, and there's no reason we couldn't do the same on 64-bit, aside
>>> from the stack-protector's use of %gs:40.  There's no code-size cost
>>> in large offsets, since they're always 32-bits anyway (there's no
>>> short absolute addressing mode).
>>>
>>> If we manually generate %gs-relative references to percpu data, then
>>> it's no different to what we do with 32-bit, whether it be a specific
>>> symbol address or using the TLS relocations.
>>>
>> 
>> If we think the problem is the zero-basing triggering linker bugs, we
>> should probably just use a small offset, like 64 (put a small dummy
>> section before the .percpu.data section to occupy this section.)
>> 
>> I'm going to play with this a bit and see if I come up with something
>> sanish.
>> 
>>     -hpa
>
> One interesting thing I've discovered is the gcc --version may make a
> difference.
>
> The kernel panic that occurred from Ingo's config, I was able to replicate
> with GCC 4.2.0 (which is on our devel server).  But this one complained
> about not being able to handle the STACK-PROTECTOR option so I moved
> everything to another machine that has 4.2.4, and now it seems that it
> works fine.  I'm still re-verifying that the source bits and config options 
> are identical (it was a later git-remote update), and that in fact it is
> the gcc --version, but that may be the conclusion.  (My code also has some
> patches submitted but not yet included in the tip/master tree.  Curiously
> just enabling some debug options changed the footprint of the panic.)
>
> Are we allowed to insist on a specific level of GCC for compiling the
> kernel?

Depends on the root cause.  If it turns out to be something that is buggy
in gcc and we can't work around.  We might do something.  I don't recall
that kind of thing happening often.  I think our minimum gcc is currently
gcc-3.4.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/