linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/44] x86/asm/head: rename 'stack_start' -> 'initial

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:	Sat, 6 Aug 2016 08:38:37 -0500
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/44] x86/asm/head: rename 'stack_start' ->
 'initial_stack'

On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 09:15:30AM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:01:57AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> The 8 should be changed to SIZEOF_PTREGS in a later patch
> >> ("x86/asm/head: standardize the end of the stack for idle tasks").
> >
> > But SIZEOF_PTREGS is 21*8. I don't understand.
> 
> This patch is only for the boot cpu's idle thread.  All other kernel
> threads, including idle threads for the secondary cpus, already have
> the pt_regs area reserved.

Ah, you're right, it does only affect the boot CPU's idle thread.

(To be clear, I think you're talking about patch 41/44, and not the
temporary stack for the verify_cpu() call which I referred to above.)

> My best guess for the current 8 byte
> padding is to make sure thread_info is calculated properly (by masking
> off the low bits from RSP).
>
> Also, this fix should be applied to 32-bit, but make sure to account
> for TOP_OF_KERNEL_STACK_PADDING.

Ok.

-- 
Josh