[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXF3_Hj9j2f_cBtwTFWvEmB0UoEs_cGkRiWc4AErDx0ftQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 15:15:22 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/28] x86: Define the stack protector guard symbol explicitly
On Sat, 28 Sept 2024 at 15:41, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 2:33 PM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 5:02 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> > >
> > > Specify the guard symbol for the stack cookie explicitly, rather than
> > > positioning it exactly 40 bytes into the per-CPU area. Doing so removes
> > > the need for the per-CPU region to be absolute rather than relative to
> > > the placement of the per-CPU template region in the kernel image, and
> > > this allows the special handling for absolute per-CPU symbols to be
> > > removed entirely.
> > >
> > > This is a worthwhile cleanup in itself, but it is also a prerequisite
> > > for PIE codegen and PIE linking, which can replace our bespoke and
> > > rather clunky runtime relocation handling.
> >
> > I would like to point out a series that converted the stack protector
> > guard symbol to a normal percpu variable [1], so there was no need to
> > assume anything about the location of the guard symbol.
> >
> > [1] "[PATCH v4 00/16] x86-64: Stack protector and percpu improvements"
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240322165233.71698-1-brgerst@gmail.com/
> >
> > Uros.
>
> I plan on resubmitting that series sometime after the 6.12 merge
> window closes. As I recall from the last version, it was decided to
> wait until after the next LTS release to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 8.1 and avoid the need to be compatible with the old stack
> protector layout.
>
Hi Brian,
I'd be more than happy to compare notes on that - I wasn't aware of
your intentions here, or I would have reached out before sending this
RFC.
There are two things that you would need to address for Clang support
to work correctly:
- the workaround I cc'ed you on the other day [0],
- a workaround for the module loader so it tolerates the GOTPCRELX
relocations that Clang emits [1]
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241002092534.3163838-2-ardb+git@google.com/
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ardb/linux.git/commit/?id=a18121aabbdd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists