[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOqpLyWR+Ek7aBiRY+Kr6sRxkSHAo2Sc6h0YCv3X3-3TuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 07:07:20 -0700
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
"Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 25/25] x86/cet/shstk: Add arch_prctl functions for
shadow stack
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:36 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> * H. J. Lu:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:19 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> * Dave Martin:
> >>
> >> > You're right that this has implications: for i386, libc probably pulls
> >> > more arguments off the stack than are really there in some situations.
> >> > This isn't a new problem though. There are already generic prctls with
> >> > fewer than 4 args that are used on x86.
> >>
> >> As originally posted, glibc prctl would have to know that it has to pull
> >> an u64 argument off the argument list for ARCH_X86_CET_DISABLE. But
> >> then the u64 argument is a problem for arch_prctl as well.
> >>
> >
> > Argument of ARCH_X86_CET_DISABLE is int and passed in register.
>
> The commit message and the C source say otherwise, I think (not sure
> about the C source, not a kernel hacker).
It should read:
arch_prctl(ARCH_X86_CET_DISABLE, unsigned long features)
--
H.J.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists