[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 10:03:55 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...omium.org>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, kristen@...ux.intel.com,
keescook@...omium.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 04/11] x86/entry/64: Adapt assembly for PIE support
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 04:09:41PM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> @@ -1625,7 +1627,11 @@ first_nmi:
> addq $8, (%rsp) /* Fix up RSP */
> pushfq /* RFLAGS */
> pushq $__KERNEL_CS /* CS */
> - pushq $1f /* RIP */
> + pushq $0 /* Future return address */
We're building an IRET frame, the IRET frame does not have a 'future
return address' field.
> + pushq %rdx /* Save RAX */
fail..
> + leaq 1f(%rip), %rdx /* RIP */
nonsensical comment
> + movq %rdx, 8(%rsp) /* Put 1f on return address */
> + popq %rdx /* Restore RAX */
fail..
> iretq /* continues at repeat_nmi below */
> UNWIND_HINT_IRET_REGS
> 1:
> --
> 2.24.0.393.g34dc348eaf-goog
>
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.
