linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] 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: <20200417080726.GS2424@tucnak>
Date:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 10:07:26 +0200
From:   Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@...too.org>,
        Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 09:57:39AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:19:30PM +0100, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> > Ah, that makes sense. Borislav, should I send a fix forward against
> > x86 tree to move -fno-stack-protector as it was in v1 patch?
> > Or you'll revert v2 and apply v1 ~as is? Or should I send those myself?
> 
> Yeah, Peter and I have been discussing something like the below
> yesterday. I don't like the additional exports too much but would
> disable stack protector only for the one function...

If you want minimal changes, you can as I said earlier either
mark cpu_startup_entry noreturn (in the declaration in some header so that
smpboot.c sees it), or you could add something after the cpu_startup_entry
call to ensure it is not tail call optimized (e.g. just
	/* Prevent tail call to cpu_startup_entry because the stack
	   protector guard has been changed in the middle of this function
	   and must not be checked before tail calling another function.  */
	asm ("");
would do, or for (;;); , or combine both, mark cpu_startup_entry noreturn and
add asm (""); (which most GCC versions will optimize away as unreachable).

	Jakub