Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 26 Mar 2023 20:45:04 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To:     Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <thomas@t-8ch.de>
Cc:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] tools/nolibc: tests: add test for -fstack-protector
Message-ID: <ZCCSsFGqTFWknGBL@1wt.eu>
References: <89a960c7-0c9b-43ab-9fc8-a68405f7ed6a@p183>
 <8e156377-e7d9-48ec-a7ee-292aba002201@t-8ch.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <8e156377-e7d9-48ec-a7ee-292aba002201@t-8ch.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 01:42:35PM -0500, Thomas Wei?schuh  wrote:
> 
> Mar 26, 2023 13:30:21 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>:
> 
> > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> #if defined(__clang__)
> >> __attribute__((optnone))
> >> #elif defined(__GNUC__)
> >> __attribute__((optimize("O0")))
> >> #endif
> >> static int smash_stack(void)
> >> {
> >> ??? char buf[100];
> >>
> >> ??? for (size_t i = 0; i < 200; i++)
> >> ??????? buf[i] = 'P';
> >>
> >> ??? return 1;
> >> }
> >
> > If you want to corrupt the stack, corrupt the stack!
> 
> I do!
> 
> > asm(
> > ".globl f\n"
> > "f:\n"
> > "movq $0, (%rsp)\n"
> > "ret\n"
> > ".type f,@function\n"
> > ".size f,.-f"
> > );
> > > No problems with optimisation levels.
> 
> Wouldn't this be architecture-specific?

Yes it would. I'm not seeing any issue with your approach instead, let's
keep it as-is for now (also it does what the stack protector is supposed
to catch anyway).

Willy