[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 19:39:33 +0100
From: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc64: check for AltiVec in setjmp/longjmp
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 08:25:09AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 08:44:47PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > It should work, but it's slightly preferred to use $+4 because one
> > explicitly wants the address of the next instruction and labels of the
>
> In this case we don't want the address of the next instruction. We
> want the address of the constant __hwcap-.
>
> Rich
According to at least one source I found at some point (and can't seem
to find right away), "bcl 20,31,+4" is the one special form of the
instruction that is most likely to circumvent the shadow stack. I have
seen "bcl 20,31,label" in the wild, even in cases where the label didn't
directly follow the instruction, so maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.
That said, architecturally it will work either way. We are only talking
about an implementation detail, and both IBM's and Freescale's/NXP's
documentation is very cagey about revealing any of those. The
instruction is specified to exist and do the right thing (namely to
branch with linking unconditionally) all the way back to the first
PowerPC implementations from the early nineties, but whether such a
thing as a branch predictor even exists, or if it uses shadow stacks to
predict the "blr" target, is entirely unspecified.
So yeah, you might want to restructure the code to move the hwcap offset
somewhere else.
Ciao,
Markus
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.
