>>> On 02.05.18 at 19:29, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/02/2018 11:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 02.05.18 at 17:22, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 05/02/2018 11:01 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 02.05.18 at 17:00, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 05/02/2018 04:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 30.04.18 at 18:23, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S >>>>>>> @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ >>>>>>> * charge of setting up it's own stack, GDT and IDT. >>>>>>> */ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +#define PVH_GDT_ENTRY_CANARY 4 >>>>>>> +#define PVH_CANARY_SEL (PVH_GDT_ENTRY_CANARY * 8) >>>>>> I can only advise against doing it this way: There's no safeguard against >>>>>> someone changing asm/segment.h without changing this value (in fact >>>>>> this applies to all of the GDT selectors populated in this file). At the >>>>> very >>>>>> least tie this to GDT_ENTRY_BOOT_TSS / __BOOT_TSS? >>>>>> >>>>>>> @@ -64,6 +67,9 @@ ENTRY(pvh_start_xen) >>>>>>> mov %eax,%es >>>>>>> mov %eax,%ss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + mov $(PVH_CANARY_SEL),%eax >>>>>>> + mov %eax,%gs >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> /* Stash hvm_start_info. */ >>>>>>> mov $_pa(pvh_start_info), %edi >>>>>>> mov %ebx, %esi >>>>>>> @@ -150,6 +156,7 @@ gdt_start: >>>>>>> .quad 0x00cf9a000000ffff /* __BOOT_CS */ >>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>> .quad 0x00cf92000000ffff /* __BOOT_DS */ >>>>>>> + .quad 0x0040900000000018 /* PVH_CANARY_SEL */ >>>>>> Without any further code before loading the selector, this points at >>>>>> physical address 0. Don't you need to add in the base address of >>>>>> the per-CPU stack_canary? >>>>> This GDT is gone soon after we jump into generic x86 startup code.That >>>>> code will load its own GDT (and then set up per-cpu segments and all that). >>>> All understood, but why would you set up the per-CPU segment here if >>>> what you load into the segment register is not usable for the intended >>>> purpose (until that other code sets up things and reloads the segment >>>> registers)? >>> The intended purpose here is to allow stack protector access not to >>> fail. At this point it doesn't really matter that GS is later used for >>> per-cpu segment, this code (and this GDT) will not be used when other >>> CPUs come up. >> But the place the canary would live this way is completely wrong. > > > Would creating a canary variable and using it as a base address be better? Of course, because then at least you properly control where an eventual access would go, instead of touching some unrelated memory location. Jan
