Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation 0/9

2017-07-18 Thread Jeff Law
On 07/13/2017 03:26 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > I have executed a validation of your patch series on aarch64 and arm > targets, and I have minor comments. > > On arm, all new tests are unsupported, as expected. Good. > On aarch64-linux, the new tests pass, but they fail on aarch64-elf: > - FAI

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation 0/9

2017-07-13 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:10:33PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > 2. ABI mandates that *sp always contain a backchain pointer (ppc) > >>> > >>> In the ELFv2 ABI a backchain is not required. GCC still always has > >>> one afaik. I'll find out more. > >> Please do. I was under the impression it w

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation 0/9

2017-07-13 Thread Jeff Law
On 07/13/2017 04:48 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:28:17AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 07/12/2017 04:44 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:19:36PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: Examples of implicit probes include >>> 2. ABI mandates that *

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation 0/9

2017-07-13 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:28:17AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/12/2017 04:44 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:19:36PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > >> Examples of implicit probes include > > > >> 2. ABI mandates that *sp always contain a backchain pointer (ppc) > > > >

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation 0/9

2017-07-13 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:28:17AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/12/2017 04:44 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:19:36PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > >> Examples of implicit probes include > > > >> 2. ABI mandates that *sp always contain a backchain pointer (ppc) > > > >

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation 0/9

2017-07-13 Thread Jeff Law
On 07/13/2017 11:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:28:17AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 07/12/2017 04:44 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:19:36PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: Examples of implicit probes include >>> 2. ABI mandates that *sp al

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation 0/9

2017-07-13 Thread Jeff Law
On 07/12/2017 04:44 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:19:36PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> Examples of implicit probes include > >> 2. ABI mandates that *sp always contain a backchain pointer (ppc) > > In the ELFv2 ABI a backchain is not required. GCC still always has > o

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation 0/9

2017-07-13 Thread Michael Matz
Hello, On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Jeff Law wrote: > This patch series is designed to mitigate the problems exposed by the > stack-clash exploits. As I've noted before, the way to address this > class of problems is via a good stack probing strategy. > > This has taken much longer than expected to pul

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation 0/9

2017-07-13 Thread Christophe Lyon
Hi Jeff, On 11 July 2017 at 23:19, Jeff Law wrote: > This patch series is designed to mitigate the problems exposed by the > stack-clash exploits. As I've noted before, the way to address this > class of problems is via a good stack probing strategy. > > This has taken much longer than expected

Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation 0/9

2017-07-12 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:19:36PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > Examples of implicit probes include > 2. ABI mandates that *sp always contain a backchain pointer (ppc) In the ELFv2 ABI a backchain is not required. GCC still always has one afaik. I'll find out more. > To get a sense of overhead,

[PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation 0/9

2017-07-11 Thread Jeff Law
This patch series is designed to mitigate the problems exposed by the stack-clash exploits. As I've noted before, the way to address this class of problems is via a good stack probing strategy. This has taken much longer than expected to pull together for submission. Sorry about that. However,