linux-kernel - Re: BUG : PowerPC RCU: torture test failed with __stack_chk

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: <CAEXW_YR4rmNY5JF-077EUpriF=PP9uML+_WMDSVi-L3G6_FOdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:44:22 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lance@...osl.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG : PowerPC RCU: torture test failed with __stack_chk_fail

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 8:30 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
>
> Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 6:58 AM Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com> wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Out of curiosity for PPC folks, why cannot 64-bit PPC use per-task
> > canary? Michael, is this an optimization? Adding Christophe as well
> > since it came in a few years ago via the following commit:
>
> I think Christophe also answered these in his reply.
>
> We do use a per-task canary, but because we don't have "current" in a
> register, we can't use the value in current for GCC.
>
> In one of my replies I said a possible solution would be to keep current
> in a register on 64-bit, but we'd need to do that in addition to the
> paca, so that would consume another GPR which we'd need to think hard
> about.

Makes sense. I'd think it is not worth allocating a separate GPR just
for this, and may cause similar register optimization issues as well.

> There's another reason to have it in the paca, which is that the paca is
> always accessible, even when the MMU is off, whereas current isn't (in
> some situations).
>
> In general we don't want to use stack protector in code that runs with
> the MMU off, but if the canary wasn't in the paca then we'd have a hard
> requirement to not use stack protector in that code.

How could you control which code paths don't have the stack protector?
Just curious.

thanks,

 - Joel