|
@@ -328,37 +328,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(warn_on_slowpath);
|
|
|
#ifndef GCC_HAS_SP
|
|
|
#warning You have selected the CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR option, but the gcc used does not support this.
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
static unsigned long __stack_check_testing;
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
* Self test function for the stack-protector feature.
|
|
|
* This test requires that the local variable absolutely has
|
|
|
- * a stack slot, hence the barrier()s.
|
|
|
+ * a stack slot.
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
static noinline void __stack_chk_test_func(void)
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
- unsigned long foo;
|
|
|
- barrier();
|
|
|
- /*
|
|
|
- * we need to make sure we're not about to clobber the return address,
|
|
|
- * while real exploits do this, it's unhealthy on a running system.
|
|
|
- * Besides, if we would, the test is already failed anyway so
|
|
|
- * time to pull the emergency brake on it.
|
|
|
- */
|
|
|
- if ((unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0) ==
|
|
|
- *(((unsigned long *)&foo)+1)) {
|
|
|
- printk(KERN_ERR "No -fstack-protector-stack-frame!\n");
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-#ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
|
|
|
- /* We also don't want to clobber the frame pointer */
|
|
|
- if ((unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0) ==
|
|
|
- *(((unsigned long *)&foo)+2)) {
|
|
|
- printk(KERN_ERR "No -fstack-protector-stack-frame!\n");
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
-#endif
|
|
|
- if (current->stack_canary != *(((unsigned long *)&foo)+1))
|
|
|
- printk(KERN_ERR "No -fstack-protector canary found\n");
|
|
|
+ unsigned long dummy_buffer[64]; /* force gcc to use the canary */
|
|
|
|
|
|
current->stack_canary = ~current->stack_canary;
|
|
|
+ refresh_stack_canary();
|
|
|
+ dummy_buffer[3] = 1; /* fool gcc into keeping the variable */
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
static int __stack_chk_test(void)
|
|
@@ -371,6 +355,7 @@ static int __stack_chk_test(void)
|
|
|
WARN_ON(1);
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
current->stack_canary = ~current->stack_canary;
|
|
|
+ refresh_stack_canary();
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
/*
|