From a9a3ed1eff3601b63aea4fb462d8b3b92c7c1e7e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Borislav Petkov Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 18:11:30 +0200 Subject: x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, third try MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ... 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, was to add an empty asm(""). This current solution was short and sweet, and reportedly, is supported by both compilers but we didn't get very far this time: future (LTO?) optimization passes could potentially eliminate this, which leads us to the third attempt: having an actual memory barrier there which the compiler cannot ignore or move around etc. That should hold for a long time, but hey we said that about the other two solutions too so... Reported-by: Sergei Trofimovich Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov Tested-by: Kalle Valo Cc: Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200314164451.346497-1-slyfox@gentoo.org --- arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) (limited to 'arch/x86/xen') diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c b/arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c index 8fb8a50a28b4..f2adb63b2d7c 100644 --- a/arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c +++ b/arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void cpu_bringup_and_idle(void) cpu_bringup(); boot_init_stack_canary(); cpu_startup_entry(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_IDLE); + prevent_tail_call_optimization(); } void xen_smp_intr_free_pv(unsigned int cpu) -- cgit v1.2.3