[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:57:53 -0800
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 14/15] arm64: implement Shadow Call Stack
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:24 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> > .macro irq_stack_entry
> > mov x19, sp // preserve the original sp
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> > + mov x20, x18 // preserve the original shadow stack
> > +#endif
>
> Hmm, not sure about corrupting x20 here. Doesn't it hold the PMR value from
> kernel_entry?
You're right, and it's used in el1_irq after irq_handler if
CONFIG_ARM64_PSEUDO_NMI is enabled. Thanks for pointing this out.
Looks like one of x24-x29 should be safe here, and the comment needs
to be updated to explain why x20-x23 shouldn't be corrupted.
Sami
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.
