On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 04:03:33AM +0000, guo...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Guo Ren <guo...@linux.alibaba.com>
>
> TSK_STACK_CANARY only used in arm64/Makefile with
> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_PER_TASK wrap. So use the same policy in
> asm-offset.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guo...@linux.alibaba.com>
> Co-developed-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> index 0577e21..37d5d3d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ int main(void)
> DEFINE(TSK_TI_SCS_SP, offsetof(struct task_struct,
> thread_info.scs_sp));
> #endif
> DEFINE(TSK_STACK, offsetof(struct task_struct, stack));
> -#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR
> +#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_PER_TASK
> DEFINE(TSK_STACK_CANARY, offsetof(struct task_struct, stack_canary));
> #endif
I don't think this really makese much sense. The 'stack_canary' field in
'struct task_struct' is defined as:
#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR
/* Canary value for the -fstack-protector GCC feature: */
unsigned long stack_canary;
#endif
so I think it makes sense to follow that in asm-offsets.c
Does the current code actually cause a problem?
Will
