[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56D75C8D.90800@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:35:09 -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 03/02/16 11:50, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 10:39:05AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Well, we definitely should use %rip-relative addressing if we can.
>
> Right you are.
>
>> However, even so I believe this breaks if the kernel is loaded anywhere
>> but its default load address. I think we need to do something like:
>>
>> movq stack_start(%rip), %rax
>> leaq __START_KERNEL_map(%rip), %rdx
>> subq %rdx, %rax
>> movq %rax, %rsp
>>
>> The use of temporary registers avoids clobbering a valid stack pointer
>> for even a single instruction if we are given one.
>
> Yeah, we should be prudent and make this as sturdy as possible. I did this:
>
> CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START=0x100beef
>
> and it aligned startup_64 up to ffffffff82000000. It seems to boot fine
> in kvm. But better safe than sorry.
>
You're not actually testing anything as the real issue is what happens
with a relocating bootloader. That's okay; I think we can be pretty
sure the above works by inspection.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists