linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 63/80] x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, third try

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: <20200519121557.GB8342@amd>
Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 14:15:57 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@...too.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 63/80] x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, third try

Hi!


> To fix that, the initial attempt was to mark the one function which
> generates the stack canary with:
> 
>   __attribute__((optimize("-fno-stack-protector"))) ... start_secondary(void *unused)
> 
> however, using the optimize attribute doesn't work cumulatively
> as the attribute does not add to but rather replaces previously
> supplied optimization options - roughly all -fxxx options.
> 
> The key one among them being -fno-omit-frame-pointer and thus leading to
> not present frame pointer - frame pointer which the kernel needs.
> 
> The next attempt to prevent compilers from tail-call optimizing
> the last function call cpu_startup_entry(), shy of carving out
> start_secondary() into a separate compilation unit and building it with
> -fno-stack-protector, was to add an empty asm("").
> 
> This current solution was short and sweet, and reportedly, is supported
> by both compilers but we didn't get very far this time: future (LTO?)
> optimization passes could potentially eliminate this, which leads us
> to the third attempt: having an actual memory barrier there which the
> compiler cannot ignore or move around etc.
> 
> That should hold for a long time, but hey we said that about the other
> two solutions too so...

You need compiler barrier, but mb() compiles down to

asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("lock; addl $0,-4(%%esp)", "mfence", \
    				     		          X86_FEATURE_XMM2)
    				     		          :::
    				     		          "memory",
    				     		          "cc")

I believe that is a bit of overkill.

I see that empty asm("") is not effective. asm volatile("", :::
"memory") should be effective, AFAICT. You should be able to use
existing barrier() macro.

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h#L20

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)