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: <20200422114007.GC20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 13:40:07 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
        Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@...too.org>,
        LKML <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>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:23:09PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Ok,
> 
> let's try the simple and clean fix first. Nick, would that work on LLVM
> too?
> 
> And I hope this will remain working and the compiler won't jump over an
> inline asm and go nuts.
> 
> Thx.
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> index 3b9bf8c7e29d..06d2e16bedbb 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -266,6 +266,13 @@ static void notrace start_secondary(void *unused)
>  
>  	wmb();
>  	cpu_startup_entry(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_IDLE);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * 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 ("");
>  }

You haz a whitespace issue there.

Also, can we get this in writing, signed in blood, from the various
compiler teams ;-)