linux-kernel - Re: [clang] stack protector and f1f029c7bf

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:   Thu, 24 May 2018 11:24:28 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     hpa@...or.com
Cc:     Alistair Strachan <astrachan@...gle.com>,
        Manoj Gupta <manojgupta@...gle.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...gle.com>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>, sedat.dilek@...il.com,
        tstellar@...hat.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [clang] stack protector and f1f029c7bf

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> A stack canary on an *inlined* function? That's bound to break things
elsewhere too sooner or later.

But it's *not* inlined by GCC or Clang.

While the function is marked `static inline`, it's not in
arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.o due to:
arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c:326

325 __visible struct pv_irq_ops pv_irq_ops = {

326         .save_fl = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(native_save_fl),

see comparison of disassembly  attached in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/attachment.cgi?id=20338
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers