[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANDihLFdmbE0q8Ya5YPWkRLxXEo4DR6ZRP-s+PjZDKEgoSY6rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 11:48:40 -0700
From: Alistair Strachan <astrachan@...gle.com>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, Manoj Gupta <manojgupta@...gle.com>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...gle.com>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>, sedat.dilek@...il.com,
tstellar@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [clang] stack protector and f1f029c7bf
(Resent plain text)
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
wrote:
> 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.
FWIW, GCC can also insert a stack guard in an out-of-lined inline function,
it just doesn't for this one. The -fstack-protector and
-fstack-protector-strong flags are heuristic and the heuristic does not
match between gcc and clang for this function. It is working on GCC purely
by chance.
> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists