From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF957C43460 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:50:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC1506144E for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:50:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AC1506144E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmx.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FWNM20Mf4z303k for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 03:50:22 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=gmx.net header.i=@gmx.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=badeba3b8450 header.b=g/RWP4q9; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmx.net (client-ip=212.227.17.22; helo=mout.gmx.net; envelope-from=j.neuschaefer@gmx.net; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=gmx.net header.i=@gmx.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=badeba3b8450 header.b=g/RWP4q9; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FWNLN3bRhz2y0N for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 03:49:47 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1619718565; bh=TLR0WvaxCXxogG6JvG/nF6/gcp1ajg6LXdzIQjIi9T0=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=g/RWP4q9tDttZ6BrquP/DE7GLTvO+LPkfhaotfKv0tHvKJGoiKr2SIfwvAFqctuu1 V/cF5hZ07fPnCatktURFBin7WDymP7dOfsbiYSqScI9y0tIFOIJgsb/yK3GngMZAXE Fud3sXL1DwUlsGtSHrxtrfZrQfZ9OQvlnWCrSB5o= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from longitude ([37.201.214.126]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MhlGq-1l7Dgz1AA4-00dqDI; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 19:49:25 +0200 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 19:49:21 +0200 From: Jonathan =?utf-8?Q?Neusch=C3=A4fer?= To: Christophe Leroy Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/32: Fix boot failure with CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CW+PUTTtArehJYIf" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:p4FsD8KQFCU+14fTrKsidcY2qU6TK0OtAyTVpjyVZyQKuM8vl6m iMV4YtO4iGzKV18zGjOPFsslKE7to32t6qSfqnOpq6xAbPYfqJCNQCVCxuTsl8y32h5CAF8 WcMqSVxfNJ/AXDMyqqvsLZ7qBU9M7jNYN2HZ6wUTKPZCsUeOPYa9X2yNHPb5SP4y5adVS/u u6fWyk115xLJt4AbVMCcg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:i+tmxP5GTFI=:o42bVvRz8nG0bH0XGZ7uoy bKuo3mPBoAH8V07Cr5om352RpmiSWswq+Kj1vPze6//jl3NVA6xe4MkBanVAVh1B8vD69Tqnx Vpg7gI4yxqc3iJzRkIS5iCqBlbdYrNfa6M9KER8ZKk/Rg17IRn38ohYZOi6Ur2cxnQqQRAAzK 3ij8CkqO1uuyxcgix3lAFN2Eu+eExfF/O30D8rAhTWAxdHAyHJliTw+7cbJrCdP9ID/PqxRZF 77dMdFkLFGm+WclBqp2P4wMTe5wERdP6bYTAkPoRIIx37FzRo4w4QvvO8/HBPl8MDWFJfe/cH L/QE3XhY/xai2d5G/xfO3TGLlYX5szZ14EeHveMWy7X6UfWrCt8B81tBkT3BB1x28BnCT6AHj 6itkKFYGRDXzsIXPc29KI61N4ztSRGJUppTYNx6DObe08pEiHfPsTNpmiccRpUx60lNJNn4TC V2TFwSaEPI6aubd3PJh3tkGANpjO4OKwh5IXNdQipyUIqG93AGETf5FsHQe6mLd5i3DG9f1nc GY8VC/J0fKDuIxp9495QaoT6zWl4zkMIFMzGO4dyZ0FbbhI8yrogAAbCbMhGb4+WNJiNPfzT/ 8WL05l50grCLGIoBVNtwzk39636Qkw9XqVu16gC3sonyoOO+AoUX9twxOo3SChbaQ+CcOfbz4 aDjbEJ2wlRJNBMCu7P4XH124AA9OPABNSUtjVe5HnMs3Df60sycf0m28vG0rWtNhb49NZJ1zX zuHPdveoNS9q1qwkc2TkXzsLYsM/5UQ6hDRbxvUFwtmdbHp2edTTO+pGohUfypNfGsBxOx2/o I0T/bhQV6g9RaeuWON+rP0AAGQj89HisFZogjo9AJZXc3QbWJLvhNGSDSRhXNzPpnxJAOIzKT R2LFTuUUbDOmiHGy34+KB3RSIjiCBO58zBe9bSjGG+AtCtYu5L96xAyoCvy++oRp43WhavRJp 0QZgj5ssmlEtjaSrGws0M28cvslbz/1U8AjZe3ZFCPWDdjHgWzMxKlYbIvGSRpdAb2Bkwbf3p a5Fhip/l67l2skvlmKgPqtaT3Lzfum/fsswzgGnuq9BIooqBd5Q1r0khA1vrDEzWluG93TnOG cNRt6gaLP2ZR0WEuAgj7GHUc6Ii7vurhPpkjBes7aHb9FSXV3iIeZrfZH681Kn3m6vRXvZz5g jM0/GD90j586xNpoF5IGxPVswEQN5qV9kDa/sk697B5aXbmvDY0tH/Znc4x4zlwZiatjNm4OB SHFb8ygTfoS3x1wah X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: j.neuschaefer@gmx.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , jniethe5@gmail.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" --CW+PUTTtArehJYIf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 04:52:09PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Commit 7c95d8893fb5 ("powerpc: Change calling convention for > create_branch() et. al.") complexified the frame of function > do_feature_fixups(), leading to GCC setting up a stack > guard when CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR is selected. >=20 > The problem is that do_feature_fixups() is called very early > while 'current' in r2 is not set up yet and the code is still > not at the final address used at link time. >=20 > So, like other instrumentation, stack protection needs to be > deactivated for feature-fixups.c and code-patching.c >=20 > Reported-by: Jonathan Neuschaefer > Fixes: 7c95d8893fb5 ("powerpc: Change calling convention for create_branc= h() et. al.") > Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy > --- Thank you for looking into this issue. This patch does indeed fix my issue. Tested-by: Jonathan Neuschaefer Thanks again, Jonathan --CW+PUTTtArehJYIf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEvHAHGBBjQPVy+qvDCDBEmo7zX9sFAmCK8ZoACgkQCDBEmo7z X9uuchAAyWiE+icouGPWkwy+BxaJD2oISzzlCt6AJmVAmMvTWHn8349SsLXQT1dv 5U1GaZfRluK6DXSaBQGv5LTSPw/Z1Z3E27XVF7kaAGDnWEeulQ+69aMwSGnZDxQX qMASPo4X3MEIi4f/ySa2/ksXTLXsIZtJxnk8V6x0q+rOyilHVai4ckKMSBG6/QcC /kACTtq2ttol/U00I40uqvQ2Hk54PSqs54T0JXf5QMlns9Tcc2B48ynJCQBv3lJP IKUwY53kmvSTgYW3x8eHyYZ/JU5RcRAQZS9lH6/Fccp20r61itbVh+r58jyew/mP 9qoe8LwtEb+cJq7npQNs3fdghpaaLyCJR1eUgperrOcafEBSSrybZdLY+46f6P7+ ZwRJsPNno+PLjAC+dvcxZNcYcwkRzv2JzRbbI95ALHoFkAmTb/DTErAbKYi/Gc9d zyglAc9nc5LQPDyqrxxp5KQU4dAWeuBtz/40rVEKv6kF6hFuVop05by+57aaYmzy Sdy+YrxR9OBCxbl5orzgCDneA65COm2m4YwapT3pfjE/9qxC/mAIjxksj9ejkPeH XMsTMxTh0YV3KxmlVk7pn5oljn8aeauGc0uOdo6dt9ATnUHxqVzCMN2HMWcRLhPG sHsffOO19NVAWbBXGOyEB70tXX3kCIBp+Oq/wiGFGBwqkyVwE0c= =vmtD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CW+PUTTtArehJYIf--