[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6729d0ff-31ff-779d-6d6f-511f9ee29e50@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 11:22:54 -0400
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/4] xen/PVH: Set up GS segment for stack
canary
On 05/02/2018 11:01 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 02.05.18 at 17:00, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com> wrote:
>> On 05/02/2018 04:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 30.04.18 at 18:23, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com> wrote:
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S
>>>> @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@
>>>> * charge of setting up it's own stack, GDT and IDT.
>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> +#define PVH_GDT_ENTRY_CANARY 4
>>>> +#define PVH_CANARY_SEL (PVH_GDT_ENTRY_CANARY * 8)
>>> I can only advise against doing it this way: There's no safeguard against
>>> someone changing asm/segment.h without changing this value (in fact
>>> this applies to all of the GDT selectors populated in this file). At the
>> very
>>> least tie this to GDT_ENTRY_BOOT_TSS / __BOOT_TSS?
>>>
>>>> @@ -64,6 +67,9 @@ ENTRY(pvh_start_xen)
>>>> mov %eax,%es
>>>> mov %eax,%ss
>>>>
>>>> + mov $(PVH_CANARY_SEL),%eax
>>>> + mov %eax,%gs
>>>> +
>>>> /* Stash hvm_start_info. */
>>>> mov $_pa(pvh_start_info), %edi
>>>> mov %ebx, %esi
>>>> @@ -150,6 +156,7 @@ gdt_start:
>>>> .quad 0x00cf9a000000ffff /* __BOOT_CS */
>>>> #endif
>>>> .quad 0x00cf92000000ffff /* __BOOT_DS */
>>>> + .quad 0x0040900000000018 /* PVH_CANARY_SEL */
>>> Without any further code before loading the selector, this points at
>>> physical address 0. Don't you need to add in the base address of
>>> the per-CPU stack_canary?
>> This GDT is gone soon after we jump into generic x86 startup code.That
>> code will load its own GDT (and then set up per-cpu segments and all that).
> All understood, but why would you set up the per-CPU segment here if
> what you load into the segment register is not usable for the intended
> purpose (until that other code sets up things and reloads the segment
> registers)?
The intended purpose here is to allow stack protector access not to
fail. At this point it doesn't really matter that GS is later used for
per-cpu segment, this code (and this GDT) will not be used when other
CPUs come up.
-boris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists