[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160218181356.GF2538@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:13:57 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: kasan: clear stale stack poison
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 06:03:54PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 05:54:47PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 05:27:38PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > @@ -145,6 +146,7 @@ ENTRY(cpu_resume_mmu)
> > > ENDPROC(cpu_resume_mmu)
> > > .popsection
> > > cpu_resume_after_mmu:
> > > + kasan_unpoison_stack 96
> >
> > I don't think the 96 here is needed since we populate the stack in
> > assembly (__cpu_suspend_enter) and unwind it again still in assembly
> > (cpu_resume_after_mmu), so no KASAN shadow writes/reads.
> >
> > Otherwise the patch looks fine.
>
> I'd much rather it was written in C -- is there a reason we can't do
> that if we use a separate compilation unit where the compiler will
> honour the fno-sanitize flag?
A simple, non-sanitised C wrapper around __cpu_suspend_enter() would
probably work. We need to make sure it is static inline when !KASAN to
avoid an unnecessary function call. Or we just move cpu_suspend() to a
different compilation unit, though that's a slightly larger function
which we may want to track under KASAN.
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists