[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:20:41 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/1] gcc-plugins: Add
stackleak feature erasing the kernel stack at the end of syscalls
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 02:51:59PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 06/09/2017 10:28 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > It seems like it shouldn't be too hard to add on-user-return erasure
> > code to other architectures too.
>
> I played around getting this to compile for arm64 with a dummy
> stack clearing function. arm64 is doing something special with the
> efistub so it fails to link with
>
> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm-stub.c:45:(.init.text+0x54): relocation
> truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_CALL26 against undefined symbol `__efistub_track_stack'
>
> The relocation to the .init.text section and appending __efistub happens after
> compilation so the checks in the plugin itself don't work. I haven't come up
> with a solution to not have the plugin run on the stub yet.
Can we do something like what we do for KCOV, and (only) place the
plugin-invoking flags to into CFLAGS_STACKLEAK, which we can filter out
in scripts/Makefile.lib?
Thanks,
Mark.
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.
