linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/stackprotector/32: Make the canary into a regular percpu variable

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: <20201006082625.GM2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:26:25 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/stackprotector/32: Make the canary into a
 regular percpu variable

On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 12:30:03PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> @@ -441,6 +441,9 @@ struct fixed_percpu_data {
>  	 * GCC hardcodes the stack canary as %gs:40.  Since the
>  	 * irq_stack is the object at %gs:0, we reserve the bottom
>  	 * 48 bytes of the irq stack for the canary.
> +	 *
> +	 * Once we are willing to require -mstack-protector-guard-symbol=
> +	 * support for x86_64 stackprotector, we can get rid of this.
>  	 */
>  	char		gs_base[40];
>  	unsigned long	stack_canary;

I'm all in favour of simply requiring GCC-8.1 to build a more secure
x86_64 kernel. Gives people an incentive to not use ancient compilers.

And if you do want to use your ancient compiler, we'll still build, you
just don't get to have stackprotector.