This repository was archived by the owner on Jul 23, 2020. It is now read-only.
Commit a9a3ed1
committed
x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, third try
... or the odyssey of trying to disable the stack protector for the
function which generates the stack canary value.
The whole story started with Sergei reporting a boot crash with a kernel
built with gcc-10:
Kernel panic — not syncing: stack-protector: Kernel stack is corrupted in: start_secondary
CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 5.6.0-rc5—00235—gfffb08b37df9 rockchip-linux#139
Hardware name: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. To be filled by O.E.M./H77M—D3H, BIOS F12 11/14/2013
Call Trace:
dump_stack
panic
? start_secondary
__stack_chk_fail
start_secondary
secondary_startup_64
-—-[ end Kernel panic — not syncing: stack—protector: Kernel stack is corrupted in: start_secondary
This happens because gcc-10 tail-call optimizes the last function call
in start_secondary() - cpu_startup_entry() - and thus emits a stack
canary check which fails because the canary value changes after the
boot_init_stack_canary() call.
To fix that, the initial attempt was to mark the one function which
generates the stack canary with:
__attribute__((optimize("-fno-stack-protector"))) ... start_secondary(void *unused)
however, using the optimize attribute doesn't work cumulatively
as the attribute does not add to but rather replaces previously
supplied optimization options - roughly all -fxxx options.
The key one among them being -fno-omit-frame-pointer and thus leading to
not present frame pointer - frame pointer which the kernel needs.
The next attempt to prevent compilers from tail-call optimizing
the last function call cpu_startup_entry(), shy of carving out
start_secondary() into a separate compilation unit and building it with
-fno-stack-protector, was to add an empty asm("").
This current solution was short and sweet, and reportedly, is supported
by both compilers but we didn't get very far this time: future (LTO?)
optimization passes could potentially eliminate this, which leads us
to the third attempt: having an actual memory barrier there which the
compiler cannot ignore or move around etc.
That should hold for a long time, but hey we said that about the other
two solutions too so...
Reported-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Tested-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200314164451.346497-1-slyfox@gentoo.org1 parent 2ef96a5 commit a9a3ed1
5 files changed
Lines changed: 23 additions & 1 deletion
File tree
- arch/x86
- include/asm
- kernel
- xen
- include/linux
- init
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
55 | 55 | | |
56 | 56 | | |
57 | 57 | | |
58 | | - | |
| 58 | + | |
59 | 59 | | |
| 60 | + | |
| 61 | + | |
| 62 | + | |
| 63 | + | |
| 64 | + | |
60 | 65 | | |
61 | 66 | | |
62 | 67 | | |
| |||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
266 | 266 | | |
267 | 267 | | |
268 | 268 | | |
| 269 | + | |
| 270 | + | |
| 271 | + | |
| 272 | + | |
| 273 | + | |
| 274 | + | |
| 275 | + | |
| 276 | + | |
269 | 277 | | |
270 | 278 | | |
271 | 279 | | |
| |||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
93 | 93 | | |
94 | 94 | | |
95 | 95 | | |
| 96 | + | |
96 | 97 | | |
97 | 98 | | |
98 | 99 | | |
| |||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
356 | 356 | | |
357 | 357 | | |
358 | 358 | | |
| 359 | + | |
| 360 | + | |
| 361 | + | |
| 362 | + | |
| 363 | + | |
| 364 | + | |
359 | 365 | | |
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
1036 | 1036 | | |
1037 | 1037 | | |
1038 | 1038 | | |
| 1039 | + | |
| 1040 | + | |
1039 | 1041 | | |
1040 | 1042 | | |
1041 | 1043 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments