similar to: x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization"

2018 May 23
33
[PATCH v3 00/27] x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization
Changes: - patch v3: - Update on message to describe longer term PIE goal. - Minor change on ftrace if condition. - Changed code using xchgq. - patch v2: - Adapt patch to work post KPTI and compiler changes - Redo all performance testing with latest configs and compilers - Simplify mov macro on PIE (MOVABS now) - Reduce GOT footprint - patch v1: - Simplify ftrace
2018 Mar 13
32
[PATCH v2 00/27] x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization
Changes: - patch v2: - Adapt patch to work post KPTI and compiler changes - Redo all performance testing with latest configs and compilers - Simplify mov macro on PIE (MOVABS now) - Reduce GOT footprint - patch v1: - Simplify ftrace implementation. - Use gcc mstack-protector-guard-reg=%gs with PIE when possible. - rfc v3: - Use --emit-relocs instead of -pie to reduce
2018 Mar 13
32
[PATCH v2 00/27] x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization
Changes: - patch v2: - Adapt patch to work post KPTI and compiler changes - Redo all performance testing with latest configs and compilers - Simplify mov macro on PIE (MOVABS now) - Reduce GOT footprint - patch v1: - Simplify ftrace implementation. - Use gcc mstack-protector-guard-reg=%gs with PIE when possible. - rfc v3: - Use --emit-relocs instead of -pie to reduce
2017 Oct 11
32
[PATCH v1 00/27] x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization
Changes: - patch v1: - Simplify ftrace implementation. - Use gcc mstack-protector-guard-reg=%gs with PIE when possible. - rfc v3: - Use --emit-relocs instead of -pie to reduce dynamic relocation space on mapped memory. It also simplifies the relocation process. - Move the start the module section next to the kernel. Remove the need for -mcmodel=large on modules. Extends
2017 Oct 11
32
[PATCH v1 00/27] x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization
Changes: - patch v1: - Simplify ftrace implementation. - Use gcc mstack-protector-guard-reg=%gs with PIE when possible. - rfc v3: - Use --emit-relocs instead of -pie to reduce dynamic relocation space on mapped memory. It also simplifies the relocation process. - Move the start the module section next to the kernel. Remove the need for -mcmodel=large on modules. Extends
2017 Oct 11
1
[PATCH v1 01/27] x86/crypto: Adapt assembly for PIE support
Change the assembly code to use only relative references of symbols for the kernel to be PIE compatible. Position Independent Executable (PIE) support will allow to extended the KASLR randomization range below the -2G memory limit. Signed-off-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie at google.com> --- arch/x86/crypto/aes-x86_64-asm_64.S | 45 ++++++++----- arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S
2017 Oct 03
2
invalid code generated on Windows x86_64 using skylake-specific features
I figured it out. I was using this implementation of __chkstk from compiler-rt: DEFINE_COMPILERRT_FUNCTION(___chkstk) push %rcx cmp $0x1000,%rax lea 16(%rsp),%rcx // rsp before calling this routine -> rcx jb 1f 2: sub $0x1000,%rcx test %rcx,(%rcx) sub $0x1000,%rax cmp $0x1000,%rax ja 2b 1:
2017 Oct 01
1
invalid code generated on Windows x86_64 using skylake-specific features
I suspect that there are 2 issues here: * I have incorrect alignment somewhere * MSVC / .pdb / CodeView debugging is not working correctly. I think the latter would help solve the former. I will send out a new email later talking about the issues I'm having debugging llvm-generated binaries with MSVC. On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Kelley <superjoe30 at gmail.com> wrote:
2017 Feb 17
2
Vector trunc code generation difference between llvm-3.9 and 4.0
Correction in the C snippet: typedef signed short v8i16_t __attribute__((ext_vector_type(8))); v8i16_t foo (v8i16_t a, int n) { return a >> n; } Best regards Saurabh On 17 February 2017 at 16:21, Saurabh Verma <saurabh.verma at movidius.com> wrote: > Hello, > > We are investigating a difference in code generation for vector splat > instructions between llvm-3.9
2017 Oct 20
1
[PATCH v1 01/27] x86/crypto: Adapt assembly for PIE support
On 20 October 2017 at 09:24, Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel.org> wrote: > > * Thomas Garnier <thgarnie at google.com> wrote: > >> Change the assembly code to use only relative references of symbols for the >> kernel to be PIE compatible. >> >> Position Independent Executable (PIE) support will allow to extended the >> KASLR randomization range below
2017 Oct 20
1
[PATCH v1 01/27] x86/crypto: Adapt assembly for PIE support
On 20 October 2017 at 09:24, Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel.org> wrote: > > * Thomas Garnier <thgarnie at google.com> wrote: > >> Change the assembly code to use only relative references of symbols for the >> kernel to be PIE compatible. >> >> Position Independent Executable (PIE) support will allow to extended the >> KASLR randomization range below
2017 Feb 18
2
Vector trunc code generation difference between llvm-3.9 and 4.0
Thanks Sanjay. Interestingly for me, disable-llvm-optmzns did not make a difference in the way the shift was handled. Does the initial IR generated for you show this difference when the option is passed? Best regards Saurabh On 17 February 2017 at 19:03, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > I think this is caused by a front-end change (cc'ing clang-dev) because >
2017 Mar 08
2
Vector trunc code generation difference between llvm-3.9 and 4.0
The regression for the reported case should be avoided after: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL297232 https://reviews.llvm.org/rL297242 https://reviews.llvm.org/rL297280 It would still be good to understand if the clang change was intentional or if that was a side effect that can be limited. On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Yes, there is an
2012 Nov 22
41
[PATCH V3] vmx/nmi: Do not use self_nmi() in VMEXIT handler
The self_nmi() code cause''s an NMI to be triggered by sending an APIC message to the local processor. However, NMIs are blocked by the VMEXIT, until the next iret or VMENTER. Volume 3 Chapter 27 Section 1 of the Intel SDM states: An NMI causes subsequent NMIs to be blocked, but only after the VM exit completes. As a result, as soon as the VMENTER happens, an immediate VMEXIT happens
2012 Oct 02
18
[PATCH 0/3] x86: adjust entry frame generation
This set of patches converts the way frames gets created from using PUSHes/POPs to using MOVes, thus allowing (in certain cases) to avoid saving/restoring part of the register set. While the place where the (small) win from this comes from varies between CPUs, the net effect is a 1 to 2% reduction on a combined interruption entry and exit when the full state save can be avoided. 1: use MOV
2007 Nov 14
10
[GE users] Apple Leopard has dtrace -- anyone used the SGE probes/scripts yet?
Hi, Chris (cc) and I try to get the SGE master monitor work with Apple Leopard dtrace. Unfortunately we are stuck with the error msg below. Anyone having an idea what could be the cause? What I can rule out as cause is function inlining for the reasons explained below. Background information on SGE master monitor implementation is under http://wiki.gridengine.info/wiki/index.php/Dtrace
2010 Jul 23
2
ZFS volume turned into a socket - any way to restore data?
I have recently upgraded from NexentaStor 2 to NexentaStor 3 and somehow one of my volumes got corrupted. Its showing up as a socket. Has anyone seen this before? Is there a way to get my data back? It seems like it''s still there, but not recognized as a folder. I ran zpool scrub, but it came back clean. Attached is the output of #zdb data/rt 2.0K sr-xr-xr-x 17 root root 17 Jul
2008 Nov 17
2
[LLVMdev] Does current LLVM target-independent code generator supports my strange chip?
I have a very strange and complicate H/W platform. It has many registers in one format. The register format is: ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 24-bit | 24-bit | 24-bit | 24-bit |
2008 Nov 20
4
[LLVMdev] Does current LLVM target-independent code generator supports my strange chip?
Because each channel contains 24-bit, so.. what is the llvm::SimpleValueType I should use for each channel? the current llvm::SimpleValueType contains i1, i8, i16, i32, i64, f32, f64, f80, none of them are fit one channel (24-bit). I think I can use i32 or f32 to represent each 24-bit channel, if the runtime result of some machine instructions exceeds 23-bit (1 bit is for sign), then it is an
2008 Nov 18
0
[LLVMdev] Does current LLVM target-independent code generator supports my strange chip?
Why not model each channel as a separate physical register? Evan On Nov 17, 2008, at 6:36 AM, Wei wrote: > I have a very strange and complicate H/W platform. > It has many registers in one format. > The register format is: > > ------------------------------ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | 24-bit