Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm64: Make TSK_STACK_CANARY more accurate defined | From | Guo Ren <> | Date | Tue, 14 Jul 2020 17:32:39 +0800 |
| |
On 2020/7/14 下午4:37, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 04:03:33AM +0000, guoren@kernel.org wrote: >> From: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com> >> >> TSK_STACK_CANARY only used in arm64/Makefile with >> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_PER_TASK wrap. So use the same policy in >> asm-offset.c. >> >> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com> >> Co-developed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> >> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> >> --- >> arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c >> index 0577e21..37d5d3d 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c >> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ int main(void) >> DEFINE(TSK_TI_SCS_SP, offsetof(struct task_struct, thread_info.scs_sp)); >> #endif >> DEFINE(TSK_STACK, offsetof(struct task_struct, stack)); >> -#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR >> +#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_PER_TASK >> DEFINE(TSK_STACK_CANARY, offsetof(struct task_struct, stack_canary)); >> #endif > I don't think this really makese much sense. The 'stack_canary' field in > 'struct task_struct' is defined as: > > #ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR > /* Canary value for the -fstack-protector GCC feature: */ > unsigned long stack_canary; > #endif > > so I think it makes sense to follow that in asm-offsets.c > > Does the current code actually cause a problem? No, I just want to know how arm64 reply, ref: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/1594397998-10221-1-git-send-email-guoren@kernel.org/T/#t
Best Regards Guo Ren
| |