linux-kernel - Re: [LLVMdev] inline asm semantics: output constraint width smaller than input

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]

Message-ID: <497B83AC.5060801@zytor.com>
Date:	Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:10:04 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Chris Lattner <clattner@...le.com>
CC:	LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev@...uiuc.edu>,
	Török Edwin 
	<edwintorok@...il.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] inline asm semantics: output constraint width smaller
 than	input

Chris Lattner wrote:
> 
> We would like to support some more specific cases (e.g. when tying a
> pointer/int to a different size pointer/int) but we currently don't
> intend to support all cases (e.g. tying a FP value to int).  We are in
> this position because the semantics are very vague and hard to reason
> about (and change based on target endianness) and we had many subtle
> bugs in the corner cases.
> 
> Instead of having silent miscompiles, we decided to just reject all the
> "hard" cases and add them back one by one as there is demand.  That way
> users could choose to modify their asms instead of having them be
> potentially silently miscompiled.
> 

The case that matters for the kernel is integer to integer, when a
register is re-used from input to output.

> LLVM 2.5 is in its release process right now, so it will not have
> improvements in this area, but LLVM 2.6 certainly could.  If there is
> interest in building the kernel with 2.5, I think taking the patches
> would be worthwhile.  If that is hopeless anyway, waiting for the
> LLVM-side fixes should be fine.

The patches don't look all that bad to me, but I really want to make
sure we don't keep littering the kernel with workarounds for N different
compilers without getting a track to have them cleaned up.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/