linux-kernel - Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

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]

Message-ID: <20170308212253.GA29562@amd>
Date:   Wed, 8 Mar 2017 22:22:53 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi!

> > - CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER sets it on x86-32 because of a gcc bug
> >   where the stack gets aligned before the mcount call.  This issue
> >   should be mostly obsolete as most modern compilers now have -mfentry.
> >   We could make it dependent on CC_USING_FENTRY.
> 
> Yeah. At some point we might even upgrade the compiler requirements to
> no longer accept the mcount model.
> 
> I think the fentry model is gcc-4.6.0 and up. Currently I guess we
> support gcc-3.2+, which is fairly ridiculous considering that 4.6.0 is
> from March, 2011. So it's over five years ago already.
> 
> gcc-3.2.0 is from 2002, I think. At some point you just have to say
> "caring about a 15 year old compiler is ridiculous"
> 
> The main reason we have fairly aggressively supported old compilers
> tends to be some odder architectures that don't have good support, so
> people use various random "this works for me" versions.
> 
> We could easily make the gcc version checks much more strict on x86,
> I suspect.

Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they just compile
stuff. Especially bisect is compile-heavy. I suspect going back to
gcc-3.2 would bring me bigger advantages than CPU upgrade...

								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)