[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160620070724.GB3266@osiris>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:07:24 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86,
core)
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:01:48PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > The tmll instruction tests if any of the higher bits within the 16k
> > stackframe address are set. In this specific case that would be bits 7-15
> > (mask 0x3f80). If no bit would be set we know that only up to 128 bytes
> > would be left on the stack, and thus trigger an exception.
> >
> > This check does of course only work if a 16k stack is also 16k aligned,
> > which is always the case.
> >
>
> Oh, interesting. How do you handle the case of a single function that
> uses more than 128 bytes of stack?
The compiler uses the next larger value of the stackframe size that is a
power of 2 for checking. So another example with a stackframe size of 472
bytes would be the below one with a mask of 0x3e00:
0000000000392db8 <htree_inlinedir_to_tree>:
392db8: eb 6f f0 48 00 24 stmg %r6,%r15,72(%r15)
392dbe: a7 f1 3e 00 tmll %r15,15872
392dc2: b9 04 00 ef lgr %r14,%r15
392dc6: a7 84 00 01 je 392dc8 <htree_inlinedir_to_tree+0x10>
392dca: e3 f0 fe 28 ff 71 lay %r15,-472(%r15)
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.
