On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 18:42, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Christophe Lyon writes:
> > On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 17:27, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Christophe Lyon writes:
> >> > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 16:33, Richard Sandiford
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The stack_protect_test pattern
Christophe Lyon writes:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 17:27, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Christophe Lyon writes:
>> > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 16:33, Richard Sandiford
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The stack_protect_test patterns were leaving the canary value in the
>> >> temporary register, meaning tha
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 17:27, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Christophe Lyon writes:
> > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 16:33, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The stack_protect_test patterns were leaving the canary value in the
> >> temporary register, meaning that it was often still in registers on
Christophe Lyon writes:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 16:33, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> The stack_protect_test patterns were leaving the canary value in the
>> temporary register, meaning that it was often still in registers on
>> return from the function. An attacker might therefore have been
>
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 16:33, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> The stack_protect_test patterns were leaving the canary value in the
> temporary register, meaning that it was often still in registers on
> return from the function. An attacker might therefore have been
> able to use it to defeat stack-s
Hi Richard,
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Sent: 05 August 2020 15:33
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: ni...@redhat.com; Richard Earnshaw ;
> Ramana Radhakrishnan ; Kyrylo
> Tkachov
> Subject: [PATCH] arm: Clear canary value after stack_protect_test [PR96191]
>
> Th
