linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Make sure verify

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]

Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2016 17:00:28 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 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 Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:32 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to think of any reason why we couldn't simply have a symbol at the top of the initial stack?  Then a simple leaq would suffice; this is for the BSP after all.
>
> Why do we need to call verify_cpu in arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S aka the
> vmlinux again ?
>
> Is that already called in arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S?

that calling is from startup_32, so may add another calling in startup_64,
so can avoid calling from arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S

>
> Or Tom is using 64bit bootloader that use vmlinux instead of bzImage?