Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:37:15 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm64: Make TSK_STACK_CANARY more accurate defined |
| |
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 04:03:33AM +0000, guoren@kernel.org wrote: > From: Guo Ren <guoren@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 <guoren@linux.alibaba.com> > Co-developed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@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
| |