[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjZXFe08MiNRevJFGDvX0O6kcQTiK8GFBS7hwUAzB+LQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 17:11:21 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: gcc-10: kernel stack is corrupted and fails to boot
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:36 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
>
>
> Looking at them, they do have an mb() too so how about this then
> instead?
>
> #define prevent_tail_call_optimization() mb()
Yeah, I think a full mb() is likely safe, because that's pretty much
always going to be a real instruction with real semantics, and no
amount of link-time optimizations can move it around a call
instruction.
I could imagine some completely UP in-order CPU that doesn't need to
serialize with anything at all, and even "mb()" might be empty. I
think you can compile old ARM kernels for that. But realistically I
think we can ignore them at least for now - I'm not sure the link-time
optimization will even do things like that tailcall conversion, and
I'm not convinced that old pre-ARMv7 systems will be relevant by the
time (if) it ever does.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists