From: Sergey Matyukevich <geomatsi@gmail.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 01/28] boot/arm-trusted-firmware: option to disable stack protection
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 22:26:32 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMJnaP4PBxaOxAyU@curiosity> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEyMn7aqWF6ki5H-Uv_rGezusRwP3oKrba2zj31OAeb-ribsQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Thomas, Heiko
> > > > +config BR2_TARGET_ARM_TRUSTED_FIRMWARE_DISABLE_SSP
> > > > + bool "Disable stack protection"
> > > > + help
> > > > + Select this option to explicitly disable stack protection checks in GCC.
> > > > + Such checks need to be disabled if ATF platform port does not implement
> > > > + plat_get_stack_protector_canary() hook.
> > >
> > > It's a bit annoying that we have to tell TF-A about this. If TF-A
> > > doesn't implement plat_get_stack_protector_canary() for a certain
> > > platform, why does it try to enable SSP ? It feels like something that
> > > should be fixed in TF-A.
> >
> > TF-A does not attempt to enable those protection checks. This is
> > controlled by its ENABLE_STACK_PROTECTOR build flag, which default
> > value is 'none'. This is Buildroot who tries to enable TF-A stack
> > protection checks depending on BR2_SSP_* toolchain features only:
> > see arm-trusted-firmware.mk.
>
> with commit 810ba387 we enabled SSP by default. And in the ATF
> makefile we map that setting to atf ENABLE_STACK_PROTECTOR setting. As
> this we force to use SSP in atf. But you're right this should be
> handled in the TF-A stack. I tried to get some feedback from the TF-A
> guys [1] but there is no helpful answer. So for now I think it is a
> quick solution to make it possible to disable SSP for ATF like that.
>
> On the other hand, does it make any sense at all to automatically take
> over the SSP setting from the compiler options?
>
> [1] https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-a/2021-May/001152.html
I would also agree that it might not be always convenient to automatically
infer TF-A SSP settings from the compiler options. Imagine the case when
secure memory constraints become an issue and all the extra features
need to be tuned or disabled in order to shrink TF-A firmware image.
So what if we leave the right to choose to the user ? I mean something
like the following menu in TF-A Config.in:
choice
prompt "TF-A GCC stack protection"
help
Select TF-A GCC stack protection. Note that for all values
other than 'none' the plat_get_stack_protector_canary()
platform hook needs to be implemented.
config BR2_TARGET_ARM_TRUSTED_FIRMWARE_SSP_NONE
bool "none"
config BR2_TARGET_ARM_TRUSTED_FIRMWARE_SSP_DEFAULT
bool "default"
depends on BR2_SSP_REGULAR
config BR2_TARGET_ARM_TRUSTED_FIRMWARE_SSP_STRONG
bool "strong"
depends on BR2_SSP_STRONG
config BR2_TARGET_ARM_TRUSTED_FIRMWARE_SSP_ALL
bool "all"
depends on BR2_SSP_ALL
endchoice
Regards,
Sergey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-10 19:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-09 19:59 [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 00/28] sunxi: use mainline arm-trusted-firmware Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 01/28] boot/arm-trusted-firmware: option to disable stack protection Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 21:40 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2021-06-09 22:03 ` Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-10 6:36 ` Heiko Thiery
2021-06-10 19:26 ` Sergey Matyukevich [this message]
2021-06-10 14:10 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 02/28] support/testing: switch TestATFAllwinner to mainline ATF Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 03/28] support/testing/tests/boot/test_atf: update U-Boot in TestATFAllwinner Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 04/28] configs/orangepi_zero_plus2_defconfig: switch to mainline ATF Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 05/28] configs/bananapi_m64_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 06/28] configs/orangepi_zero_plus_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 07/28] configs/orangepi_pc2_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 08/28] configs/orangepi_prime_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 09/28] configs/orangepi_win_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 10/28] configs/friendlyarm_nanopi_a64_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 11/28] configs/friendlyarm_nanopi_neo2_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 12/28] configs/friendlyarm_nanopi_neo_plus2_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 13/28] configs/amarula_a64_relic_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 14/28] configs/olimex_a64_olinuxino_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 15/28] configs/pine64_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 16/28] configs/pine64_sopine_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 17/28] configs/orangepi-zero-plus2: bump BSP versions Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 18/28] configs/bananapi_m64_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 19/28] configs/orangepi_zero_plus_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 20/28] configs/orangepi_pc2_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 21/28] configs/orangepi_prime_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 22/28] configs/orangepi_win_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 23/28] configs/friendlyarm_nanopi_a64_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 19:59 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 24/28] configs/friendlyarm_nanopi_neo2_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 20:00 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 25/28] configs/friendlyarm_nanopi_neo_plus2_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 20:00 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 26/28] configs/olimex_a64_olinuxino_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 20:00 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 27/28] configs/pine64_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-09 20:00 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 28/28] configs/pine64_sopine_defconfig: " Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-10 13:22 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 00/28] sunxi: use mainline arm-trusted-firmware Thomas Petazzoni
2021-06-10 19:37 ` Sergey Matyukevich
2021-06-24 21:25 ` Yann E. MORIN
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YMJnaP4PBxaOxAyU@curiosity \
--to=geomatsi@gmail.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.