Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:55:19 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, 
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, 
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: fix randomized task_struct

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 30 Jun 2017, at 15:34, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>
>> With the new task struct randomization, we can run into a build
>> failure for certain random seeds:
>>
>> arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S: Assembler messages:
>> arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S:803: Error: bad immediate value for offset (4096)
>>
>> Only two constants in asm-offset.h are affected, and I'm changing
>> both of them here to work correctly in all configurations.
>>
>> One more macro has the problem, but is currently unused, so this
>> removes it instead of adding complexity.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
>> Fixes: c33d8b12fbbd ("task_struct: Allow randomized layout")
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S |  5 ++++-
>> arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S    | 10 ++++------
>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S
>> index 9f157e7c51e7..db6d22b23bd8 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S
>> @@ -797,7 +797,10 @@ ENTRY(__switch_to)
>> #if defined(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR) && !defined(CONFIG_SMP)
>>    ldr    r7, [r2, #TI_TASK]
>>    ldr    r8, =__stack_chk_guard
>> -    ldr    r7, [r7, #TSK_STACK_CANARY]
>> +    .if (TSK_STACK_CANARY > PAGE_MASK)
>
> Shouldn't this be ~PAGE_MASK?
>
> I think
>
> .if (TSK_STACK_CANARY & PAGE_MASK) != 0
>
> is better and clearer as well

Right, sorry about that. Russell also pointed out that PAGE_MASK
is not the best constant for this, as the MMU page size is independent
of the definition of the immediate arguments. I'll fix both and resend.

       Arnd

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.