linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/irq: don't use current_stack_pointer() in check_stack

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 02:44:50 -0600
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/irq: don't use current_stack_pointer() in check_stack_overflow()

Hi!

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 04:46:24PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> writes:
> >  static inline void check_stack_overflow(void)
> >  {
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW
> > -	long sp;
> > -
> > -	sp = current_stack_pointer() & (THREAD_SIZE-1);
> > +	register unsigned long r1 asm("r1");
> > +	long sp = r1 & (THREAD_SIZE - 1);
> 
> This appears to work but seems to be "unsupported" by GCC, and clang
> actually complains about it:
> 
>   /linux/arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c:603:12: error: variable 'r1' is uninitialized when used here [-Werror,-Wuninitialized]
>           long sp = r1 & (THREAD_SIZE - 1);
>                     ^~
> 
> The GCC docs say:
> 
>   The only supported use for this feature is to specify registers for
>   input and output operands when calling Extended asm (see Extended
>   Asm).
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.1.0/gcc/Local-Register-Variables.html#Local-Register-Variables

Yes.  Don't use local register variables any other way.  It *will* break.

> If I do this it seems to work, but feels a little dicey:
> 
> 	asm ("" : "=r" (r1));
> 	sp = r1 & (THREAD_SIZE - 1);

The only thing dicey about that is that you are writing to r1.  Heh.
Well that certainly is bad enough, the compiler does not know how to
handle that at all...  Of course you aren't *actually* changing
anything, so it might just work.


Segher