[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:22:06 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Make sure verify_cpu has a good stack
On 03/03/16 08:29, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 07:26:06AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Why -8?
>
> GLOBAL(stack_start)
> .quad init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE-8
> ^^^
>
> But I don't see why it needed the -8 then. It came with a conglomerate
> dump in 2002:
>
> commit af53c7a2c81399b805b6d4eff887401a5e50feef
> Author: Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
> Date: Fri Apr 19 20:23:17 2002 -0700
>
> [PATCH] x86-64 architecture specific sync for 2.5.8
>
>
> - /* Setup the first kernel stack (this instruction is modified by smpboot) */
> - .byte 0x48, 0xb8 /* movq *init_rsp,%rax */
> -init_rsp:
> - .quad init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE
> - movq %rax, %rsp
>
> ...
>
> -
> - /* SMP bootup changes this */
> + /* SMP bootup changes these two */
> .globl initial_code
> initial_code:
> .quad x86_64_start_kernel
> + .globl init_rsp
> +init_rsp:
> + .quad init_thread_union+THREAD_SIZE-8
> +
> ---
>
> But since we decrement first and then copy to stack ptr when we push, I
> don't see why we need the -8.
>
> Do you have a better clue?
>
The only thing I can think of is that the -8 creates a null pointer that
terminates a stack trace.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists