On 4/19/22 22:40, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 09:22:11PM +0800, He Zhe wrote:
>> This function checks if the given address range crosses frame boundary.
> I don't think that's quite true, becuase arm64's procedure call standard
> (AAPCS64) doesn't give us enough
> > Thanks for doing this implementation! One reason usercopy hardening
> > didn't persue doing a "full" stacktrace was because it seemed relatively
> > expensive. Did you do any usercopy-heavily workload testing to see if
> > there was a noticeable performance impact?
Look at anything that uses
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 09:22:11PM +0800, He Zhe wrote:
> This function checks if the given address range crosses frame boundary.
I don't think that's quite true, becuase arm64's procedure call standard
(AAPCS64) doesn't give us enough information to determine this without
additional
On 4/19/22 05:59, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 09:22:11PM +0800, He Zhe wrote:
>> This function checks if the given address range crosses frame boundary.
>> It is based on the existing x86 algorithm, but implemented via stacktrace.
>> This can be tested by
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 09:22:11PM +0800, He Zhe wrote:
> This function checks if the given address range crosses frame boundary.
> It is based on the existing x86 algorithm, but implemented via stacktrace.
> This can be tested by USERCOPY_STACK_FRAME_FROM and
> USERCOPY_STACK_FRAME_TO in lkdtm.
This function checks if the given address range crosses frame boundary.
It is based on the existing x86 algorithm, but implemented via stacktrace.
This can be tested by USERCOPY_STACK_FRAME_FROM and
USERCOPY_STACK_FRAME_TO in lkdtm.
Signed-off-by: He Zhe
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig
