Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: initial stack protector (-fstack-protector) support
From: Christophe LEROY <hidden>
Date: 2016-11-22 11:23:12
Also in:
lkml
Le 17/11/2016 à 12:05, Michael Ellerman a écrit : Hi Michael, I took your comments into account in v2. Shame on me, I forgot to add the list of changes from v1 to v2 in the commit log. Christophe
Christophe Leroy [off-list ref] writes:quoted
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/stackprotector.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/stackprotector.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..de00332 --- /dev/null +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/stackprotector.h@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +/* + * GCC stack protector support. + * + * Stack protector works by putting predefined pattern at the start of + * the stack frame and verifying that it hasn't been overwritten when + * returning from the function. The pattern is called stack canary + * and gcc expects it to be defined by a global variable called + * "__stack_chk_guard" on ARM. This unfortunately means that on SMP^ PPCquoted
+ * we cannot have a different canary value per task. + */ + +#ifndef _ASM_STACKPROTECTOR_H +#define _ASM_STACKPROTECTOR_H 1We usually just define it, not define it to 1.quoted
+ +#include <linux/random.h> +#include <linux/version.h> + +extern unsigned long __stack_chk_guard; + +/* + * Initialize the stackprotector canary value. + * + * NOTE: this must only be called from functions that never return, + * and it must always be inlined. + */ +static __always_inline void boot_init_stack_canary(void) +{ + unsigned long canary; + + /* Try to get a semi random initial value. */ + get_random_bytes(&canary, sizeof(canary)); + canary ^= LINUX_VERSION_CODE;What about mixing in an mftb() as well ?quoted
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile b/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile index e59ed6a..4a62179 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile@@ -19,6 +19,11 @@ CFLAGS_init.o += $(DISABLE_LATENT_ENTROPY_PLUGIN) CFLAGS_btext.o += $(DISABLE_LATENT_ENTROPY_PLUGIN) CFLAGS_prom.o += $(DISABLE_LATENT_ENTROPY_PLUGIN) +# -fstack-protector triggers protection checks in this code, +# but it is being used too early to link to meaningful stack_chk logic. +nossp_flags := $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector) +CFLAGS_prom_init.o := $(nossp_flags)We've already assigned to CFLAGS_prom_init.o so I think you should be using += not := shouldn't you? Also it could just be a single line: CFLAGS_prom_init.o += $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector) cheers