[PATCH -fixes] riscv: Do not use fortify in early code
Jessica Clarke
jrtc27 at jrtc27.com
Tue Oct 15 15:04:47 PDT 2024
On 9 Oct 2024, at 08:27, Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti at rivosinc.com> wrote:
>
> Early code designates the code executed when the MMU is not yet enabled,
> and this comes with some limitations (see
> Documentation/arch/riscv/boot.rst, section "Pre-MMU execution").
>
> FORTIFY_SOURCE must be disabled then since it can trigger kernel panics
> as reported in [1].
>
> Reported-by: Jason Montleon <jmontleo at redhat.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CAJD_bPJes4QhmXY5f63GHV9B9HFkSCoaZjk-qCT2NGS7Q9HODg@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
> Fixes: a35707c3d850 ("riscv: add memory-type errata for T-Head")
> Fixes: 26e7aacb83df ("riscv: Allow to downgrade paging mode from the command line")
> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti at rivosinc.com>
Is the problem in [1] not just that the early boot path uses memcpy on
the result of ALT_OLD_PTR, which is a wildly out-of-bounds pointer from
the compiler’s perspective? If so, it would seem better to use
unsafe_memcpy for that one call site rather than use the big
__NO_FORTIFY hammer, surely?
Presumably the non-early path is just as bad to the compiler, but works
because patch_text_nosync isn’t instrumented, so that would just align
the two.
Getting the implementation to not be silent on failure during early
boot would also be a good idea, but it’s surely better to have
FORTIFY_SOURCE enabled with no output for positives than disable the
checking in the first place and risk uncaught corruption.
Jess
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list