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 informa
> > 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 s
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 metadata
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 USERCOPY_STACK_FRAME_FROM
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.
H
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
