Re: [PATCH] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 02:42:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Right I know, I looked for it recently :/ But since this is new in 10
> and 10 isn't released yet, I figured someone can add the attribute
> before it does get released.

Yes, that would be a good solution.

I looked at what happens briefly after building gcc10 from git and IINM,
the function in question - start_secondary() - already gets the stack
canary asm glue added so it checks for a stack canary.

However, the stack canary value itself gets set later in that same
function:

        /* to prevent fake stack check failure in clock setup */
        boot_init_stack_canary();

so the asm glue which checks for it would need to reload the newly
computed canary value (it is 0 before we compute it and thus the
mismatch).

So having a way to state "do not add stack canary checking to this
particular function" would be optimal. And since you already have the
"stack_protect" function attribute I figure adding a "no_stack_protect"
one should be easy...

> > Or of course you could add noinline attribute to whatever got inlined
> > and contains some array or addressable variable that whatever
> > -fstack-protector* mode kernel uses triggers it.  With -fstack-protector-all
> > it would never work even in the past I believe.
> 
> I don't think the kernel supports -fstack-protector-all, but I could be
> mistaken.

The other thing I was thinking was to carve out only that function into
a separate compilation unit and disable stack protector only for it.

All IMHO of course.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette