Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 1/2] xen/PVH: Set up GS segment for stack canary

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 22.05.18 at 18:20, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/22/2018 12:10 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 22.05.18 at 17:15, <brgerst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22.05.18 at 15:45, <brgerst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:54 PM, Boris Ostrovsky 
>>>>> <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -98,6 +101,12 @@ ENTRY(pvh_start_xen)
>>>>>>         /* 64-bit entry point. */
>>>>>>         .code64
>>>>>>  1:
>>>>>> +       /* Set base address in stack canary descriptor. */
>>>>>> +       mov $MSR_GS_BASE,%ecx
>>>>>> +       mov $canary, %rax
>>>>>> +       cdq
>>>>>> +       wrmsr
>>>>> CDQ only sign-extends EAX to RAX.  What you really want is to move the
>>>>> high 32-bits to EDX (or zero EDX if we can guarantee it is loaded
>>>>> below 4G).
>>>> What you describe is CDQE (AT&T name: CLTD); CDQ (AT&T: CLTQ)
>>>> sign-extends EAX to EDX:EAX.
>>> But that would still be wrong, as it would set EDX to 0xFFFFFFFF if
>>> the kernel was loaded between 2G and 4G.  Looking closer at the code,
>>> we just left 32-bit mode, so we must have been loaded below 4G,
>>> therefore EDX must be zero.
>> Ah, yes, indeed.
> 
> We are loading virtual address for $canary so we will always have EDX
> set to 0xffffffff. Isn't that what we want?

Oh, that's rather confusing - we're still running on the low 1:1
mapping when we're here. But yes, by the time we enter C code
(where the GS base starts to matter) we ought to be on the high
mappings - if only there wasn't xen_prepare_pvh().

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel