[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9jShNfS/d8LGu8w@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 09:34:12 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tdx: Do not corrupt frame-pointer in
__tdx_hypercall()
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 04:53:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> If compiled with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y, objtool in not happy that
> __tdx_hypercall() messes up RBP.
>
> objtool: __tdx_hypercall+0x7f: return with modified stack frame
>
> Rework the function to store TDX_HCALL_ flags on stack instead of RBP.
Also, on IRC you mentioned that per TDX spec, BP is a valid argument
register too and you were going to raise this and get it fixed, TDX
hypercalls must not use BP to pass data.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists