[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170113031107.mgitq54fmjnrvi6f@treble>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:11:07 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: x86-64: Maintain 16-byte stack alignment
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 05:46:55PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:08:07PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Linus Torvalds
> >> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Just to clarify, I think you're asking if, for versions of gcc which
> >> >> don't support -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3, objtool can analyze all C
> >> >> functions to ensure their stacks are 16-byte aligned.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's certainly possible, but I don't see how that solves the problem.
> >> >> The stack will still be misaligned by entry code. Or am I missing
> >> >> something?
> >> >
> >> > I think the argument is that we *could* try to align things, if we
> >> > just had some tool that actually then verified that we aren't missing
> >> > anything.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not entirely happy with checking the generated code, though,
> >> > because as Ingo says, you have a 50:50 chance of just getting it right
> >> > by mistake. So I'd much rather have some static tool that checks
> >> > things at a code level (ie coccinelle or sparse).
> >>
> >> What I meant was checking the entry code to see if it aligns stack
> >> frames, and good luck getting sparse to do that. Hmm, getting 16-byte
> >> alignment for real may actually be entirely a lost cause. After all,
> >> I think we have some inline functions that do asm volatile ("call
> >> ..."), and I don't see any credible way of forcing alignment short of
> >> generating an entirely new stack frame and aligning that.
> >
> > Actually we already found all such cases and fixed them by forcing a new
> > stack frame, thanks to objtool. For example, see 55a76b59b5fe.
>
> What I mean is: what guarantees that the stack is properly aligned for
> the subroutine call? gcc promises to set up a stack frame, but does
> it promise that rsp will be properly aligned to call a C function?
Yes, I did an experiment and you're right. I had naively assumed that
all stack frames would be aligned.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists