linux-kernel - Re: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Sep 2013 06:58:13 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@....ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
	Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix

On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 15:27 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > It's hard to tell with gcc ... the best I've had so far as an option was
> > something that would mark my per-cpu register (r13) *itself* as clobbered...
> 
> Well, as I said above, that would be better, but it requires providing an
> alternate definition of barrier() that is per-architecture, not just
> per-compiler.  

My compiler people tell me "clobbered" is wrong. It will tell the
compiler that barrier() damages r13 (or whatever other register you use)
and instead make it do exactly the wrong thing which is to back it up
before the barrier and use the backup :-)

I'm told what we need is an empty asm that marks r13 as an *output* (and
possible an input as well to be safe).

I will experiment.

> If there's interest in pursuing a solution like that, it
> would be technically somewhat better; in particular, with PREEMPT_NONE,
> you could treat the "tp" register int as locally scoped in an inline, and
> the compiler wouldn't have to reload it after function calls.  Presumably
> we'd need to pick an asm header that could provide an arch_barrier_clobbers
> string that would be added to barrier() for gcc if it were defined.

My idea was to add a preempt_barrier() and put that in preempt_enable/disable
and the various irq enable/disable.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/