[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200603151857.GC23071@8bytes.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:18:57 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Cfir Cohen <cfir@...gle.com>,
Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 35/75] x86/head/64: Build k/head64.c with
-fno-stack-protector
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:58:18AM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:28 AM Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org> wrote:
> The proper fix would be to initialize MSR_GS_BASE earlier.
That'll mean to initialize it two times during boot, as the first C
function with stack-protection is called before the kernel switches to
its high addresses (early_idt_setup call-path). But okay, I can do that.
On the other side, which value does the stack protector have in the early
boot code?
Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists