Messages in this thread | | | From | Arvind Sankar <> | Date | Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:53:41 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10 |
| |
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 02:54:21PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 02:20:00PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:54:50PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 02:42:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Right I know, I looked for it recently :/ But since this is new in 10 > > > > and 10 isn't released yet, I figured someone can add the attribute > > > > before it does get released. > > > > > > Yes, that would be a good solution. > > > > > > I looked at what happens briefly after building gcc10 from git and IINM, > > > the function in question - start_secondary() - already gets the stack > > > canary asm glue added so it checks for a stack canary. > > > > > > However, the stack canary value itself gets set later in that same > > > function: > > > > > > /* to prevent fake stack check failure in clock setup */ > > > boot_init_stack_canary(); > > > > > > so the asm glue which checks for it would need to reload the newly > > > computed canary value (it is 0 before we compute it and thus the > > > mismatch). > > > > > > So having a way to state "do not add stack canary checking to this > > > particular function" would be optimal. And since you already have the > > > "stack_protect" function attribute I figure adding a "no_stack_protect" > > > one should be easy... > > > > > > > > Or of course you could add noinline attribute to whatever got inlined > > > > > and contains some array or addressable variable that whatever > > > > > -fstack-protector* mode kernel uses triggers it. With -fstack-protector-all > > > > > it would never work even in the past I believe. > > > > > > > > I don't think the kernel supports -fstack-protector-all, but I could be > > > > mistaken. > > > > > > The other thing I was thinking was to carve out only that function into > > > a separate compilation unit and disable stack protector only for it. > > > > > > All IMHO of course. > > > > > > Thx. > > > > > > -- > > > Regards/Gruss, > > > Boris. > > > > > > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette > > > > With STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG, gcc9 (at least gentoo's version, not sure if > > they have some patches that affect it) already adds stack canary into > > start_secondary. Not sure why it doesn't panic already with gcc9? > > > > 00000000000008f0 <start_secondary>: > > 8f0: 53 push %rbx > > 8f1: 48 83 ec 10 sub $0x10,%rsp > > 8f5: 65 48 8b 04 25 28 00 mov %gs:0x28,%rax > > 8fc: 00 00 > > 8fe: 48 89 44 24 08 mov %rax,0x8(%rsp) > > 903: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax > > ... > > a2e: e8 00 00 00 00 callq a33 <start_secondary+0x143> > > a2f: R_X86_64_PLT32 cpu_startup_entry-0x4 > > a33: 48 8b 44 24 08 mov 0x8(%rsp),%rax > > a38: 65 48 33 04 25 28 00 xor %gs:0x28,%rax > > a3f: 00 00 > > a41: 75 12 jne a55 <start_secondary+0x165> > > a43: 48 83 c4 10 add $0x10,%rsp > > a47: 5b pop %rbx > > a48: c3 retq > > a49: 0f 01 1d 00 00 00 00 lidt 0x0(%rip) # a50 <start_secondary+0x160> > > a4c: R_X86_64_PC32 debug_idt_descr-0x4 > > a50: e9 cb fe ff ff jmpq 920 <start_secondary+0x30> > > a55: e8 00 00 00 00 callq a5a <start_secondary+0x16a> > > a56: R_X86_64_PLT32 __stack_chk_fail-0x4 > > Wait a sec, this function calls cpu_startup_entry as the last thing it > does, which should never return, and hence the stack canary value should > never get checked. > > How does the canary get checked with the gcc10 code? > > boot_init_stack_canary depends on working if called from functions that > don't return. If that doesn't work with gcc10, we need to disable stack > protector for the other callpoints too -- start_kernel in init/main.c > and cpu_bringup_and_idle in arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c. > > /* > * 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)
Ugh, gcc10 tail-call optimizes the cpu_startup_entry call, and so checks the canary before jumping out. The xen one will need to have stack protector disabled too. It doesn't optimize the arch_call_rest_init call in start_kernel for some reason, but we should probably disable it there too.
a06: 0f ae f8 sfence a09: 48 8b 44 24 08 mov 0x8(%rsp),%rax a0e: 65 48 2b 04 25 28 00 sub %gs:0x28,%rax a15: 00 00 a17: 75 1b jne a34 <start_secondary+0x164> a19: 48 83 c4 10 add $0x10,%rsp a1d: bf 8d 00 00 00 mov $0x8d,%edi a22: 5b pop %rbx a23: e9 00 00 00 00 jmpq a28 <start_secondary+0x158> a24: R_X86_64_PLT32 cpu_startup_entry-0x4 a28: 0f 01 1d 00 00 00 00 lidt 0x0(%rip) # a2f <start_secondary+0x15f> a2b: R_X86_64_PC32 debug_idt_descr-0x4 a2f: e9 cc fe ff ff jmpq 900 <start_secondary+0x30> a34: e8 00 00 00 00 callq a39 <start_secondary+0x169> a35: R_X86_64_PLT32 __stack_chk_fail-0x4
| |