[PATCH] x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, next try

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

Ok,

I have tried to summarize our odyssey so far and here's what I came up
with. Just built latest gcc from the git repo and it seems to work.

Next I need to come up with a slick way of testing the compiler...

Thx.

---
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>

... 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 #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, is this one.

The current solution is short and sweet, and reportedly, is supported by
both compilers so let's see how far we'll get this time.

Reported-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200314164451.346497-1-slyfox@gentoo.org
---
 arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
index 3b9bf8c7e29d..e9f44727fccd 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
@@ -266,6 +266,14 @@ static void notrace start_secondary(void *unused)
 
 	wmb();
 	cpu_startup_entry(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_IDLE);
+
+	/*
+	 * Prevent tail call to cpu_startup_entry() because the stack protector
+	 * guard has been changed a couple of functions up, in
+	 * boot_init_stack_canary() and must not be checked before tail calling
+	 * another function.
+	 */
+	asm ("");
 }
 
 /**
-- 
2.21.0


-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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