linux-kernel - Re: stack overflow on Sparc64

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]

Message-Id: <20080618.205948.107681537.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	mpatocka@...hat.com
Cc:	sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	agk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: stack overflow on Sparc64

From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:24:20 -0400 (EDT)

> BTW. what's the purpose of having 192-byte stack frame? There are 16 
> 8-byte registers being saved per function call, so 128-byte frame should 
> be sufficient, shoudn't? The ABI specifies that some additional entries 
> must be present even if unused, but I don't see reason for them. Would 
> something bad happen if GCC started to generate 128-byte stacks?

The callee can pop the arguments into the area past the
register window.

So you have the 128 byte register window save area, 6
slots for incoming arguments, which gives us 176 bytes.
The rest is for some miscellaneous stack frame state,
which I don't remember the details of at the moment.
I'd have to read the sparc backend of gcc to remember.
--
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/