linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10

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: <20200316130414.GC12561@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:04:14 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@...too.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 04:44:51PM +0000, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> The change fixes boot failure on physical machine where kernel
> is built with gcc-10 with stack-protector enabled by default:

> This happens because `start_secondary()` is responsible for setting
> up initial stack canary value in `smpboot.c`, but nothing prevents
> gcc from inserting stack canary into `start_secondary()` itself
> before `boot_init_stack_canary()` call.

> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile b/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile
> index 9b294c13809a..da9f4ea9bf4c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile
> @@ -11,6 +11,12 @@ extra-y	+= vmlinux.lds
>  
>  CPPFLAGS_vmlinux.lds += -U$(UTS_MACHINE)
>  
> +# smpboot's init_secondary initializes stack canary.
> +# Make sure we don't emit stack checks before it's
> +# initialized.
> +nostackp := $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector)
> +CFLAGS_smpboot.o := $(nostackp)

What makes GCC10 insert this while GCC9 does not. Also, I would much
rather GCC10 add a function attrbute to kill this:

  __attribute__((no_stack_protect))

Then we can explicitly clear this one function and keep it on for the
rest of the file.