linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86_64: Use relative per-cpu offsets

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: <47ea5a6a-025d-bcf2-d23a-be96cbcd36d3@zytor.com>
Date:   Sat, 13 Nov 2021 20:24:11 -0800
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86_64: Use relative per-cpu offsets

On 11/13/21 17:18, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2021, at 4:40 AM, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> The per-cpu section is currently linked at virtual address 0, because
>> older compilers hardcoded the stack protector canary value at a fixed
>> offset from the start of the GS segment.  Use a standard relative offset
>> as the GS base when the stack protector is disabled, or a newer compiler
>> is used that supports a configurable location for the stack canary.
> 
> Can you explain the benefit?  Also, I think we should consider dropping support for the fixed model like we did on x86_32.
> 

It would seem that UNLESS the fixed model is dropped, the benefit is 
probably negative.

	-hpa