[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 16:03:49 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, will.deacon@....com,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, james.morse@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, alex.popov@...ux.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Clear the stack
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 01:14:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 11:48:05AM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > On 07/02/2018 06:02 AM, Alexander Popov wrote:
> > > On 29.06.2018 22:05, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > > > Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes since last time:
> > > > - Minor name change in entry.S
> > > > - Converted to use the generic interfaces so there's minimal additions.
> > > > - Added the fast syscall path.
> > > > - Addition of on_thread_stack and current_top_of_stack
> > > > - Disable stackleak on hyp per suggestion
> > > > - Added a define for check_alloca. I'm still not sure about keeping it
> > > > since the x86 version got reworked?
> > > >
> > > > I've mostly kept this as one patch with a minimal commit text. I can
> > > > split it up and elaborate more before final merging.
> > > > ---
>
> [...]
>
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> > > > index ec2ee720e33e..31c9da7d401e 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> > > > @@ -401,6 +401,11 @@ tsk .req x28 // current thread_info
> > > > .text
> > > > + .macro stackleak_erase
> > >
> > > Could you rename the macro to STACKLEAK_ERASE for similarity with x86?
> > >
> >
> > Mark Rutland had previously asked for this to be lowercase.
> > I really don't care one way or the other so I'll defer to
> > someone else to have the final word.
>
> Will, Catalin, could you chime in either way?
>
> I'd previously asked for lower-case for consistency with our other
> assembly macros.
I'd keep it lowercase as the other arm64 macros in this file.
--
Catalin
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.
