linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC rebase 3/9] powerpc/64: Use barrier

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:   Fri, 16 Mar 2018 10:15:49 +0100
From:   Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:     Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        "Bryant G. Ly" <bryantly@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
        Cédric Le Goater <clg@...d.org>,
        David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC rebase 3/9] powerpc/64: Use barrier_nospec in
 syscall entry

Hello,

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:18:23 +1000
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:15:52 +0100
> Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> > On powerpc syscall entry is done in assembly so patch in an explicit
> > barrier_nospec.  
> 
> Same comment as Linus for this -- the barriers are before the branch
> here, so is it possible the branch instruction can be speculative
> while the index is used to load the syscall table?

As far as I understand barriers they separate code before the barrier
and code after the barrier.

So inserting barrier_nospec after cmpldi means that the result of the
cmpldi has to be known before any instruction following barrier_nospec
that depends on the result can be executed. 

In many cases it is useful to put the barrier after a branch. It allows
the compiler to speculate on the computed value at compile time and if
it is constrained optimize out the branch. It may also result in the
need to include many barriers and less readable code.

However, you have probably knowledge of the powerpc implementation of
the barrier so if the semantic is actually different then please
enlighten me.

Thanks

Michal