[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVME33SKP9sURj5S_1sFmLH5csHCHBJZppCLY3uncXrOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:42:28 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: Why is irq_stack_union a union?
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>> Why not just a struct? Also, why is this all tangled up in gsbase initialization?
>>>
>>> It has to do with the fact that the GCC stackprotector is hardcoded to
>>> look for the canary at %gs:40. Since we also use %gs for the percpu
>>> segment, we have to make sure that the canary is placed at the start
>>> of the percpu section. Overlaying it onto the bottom of the IRQ stack
>>> and was the most convenient way to do it, with a side benefit that
>>> overflowing the stack will trip the canary.
>>
>> Would a struct not make more sense, then?
>
> Why would it? A union shows the overlay better.
I guess you're thinking of it as an overlay and I'm thinking of it as
the layout being the IRQ stack directly above the stack canary.
--Andy
>
> --
> Brian Gerst
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists