linux-kernel - Re: Definition of BUG on x86

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: <20090219124702.GC22044@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:47:02 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Definition of BUG on x86


* Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar píše v Čt 19. 02. 2009 v 13:22 +0100:
> > * Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ingo Molnar píše v Čt 19. 02. 2009 v 13:10 +0100:
> > > > * Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > So, the only method I could invent was using gas macros. It 
> > > > > works but is quite ugly, because it relies on the actual 
> > > > > assembler instruction which is generated by the compiler. Now, 
> > > > > AFAIK gcc has always translated "for(;;)" into a jump to self, 
> > > > > and that with any conceivable compiler options, but I don't 
> > > > > know anything about Intel cc.
> > > > 
> > > > > +static inline __noreturn void discarded_jmp(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	asm volatile(".macro jmp target\n"
> > > > > +		     "\t.purgem jmp\n"
> > > > > +		     ".endm\n");
> > > > > +	for (;;) ;
> > > > > +}
> > > > 
> > > > hm, that's very fragile.
> > > > 
> > > > Why not just:
> > > > 
> > > >  static inline __noreturn void x86_u2d(void)
> > > >  {
> > > > 	asm volatile("u2d\n");
> > > >  }
> > > > 
> > > > If GCC emits a bogus warning about _that_, then it's a bug in 
> > > > the compiler that should be fixed.
> > > 
> > > I wouldn't call it a bug. The compiler has no idea about what 
> > > the inline assembly actualy does. So it cannot recognize that 
> > > the ud2 instruction does not return (which BTW might not even 
> > > be the case, depending on the implementation of the Invalid 
> > > Opcode exception).
> > 
> > No, i'm not talking about the inline assembly.
> > 
> > I'm talking about the x86_u2d() _inline function_, which has 
> > the __noreturn attribute.
> > 
> > Shouldnt that be enough to tell the compiler that it ... wont 
> > return?
> 
> Nope, that's not how it works.
> 
> You _may_ specify a noreturn attribute to any function (and 
> GCC will honour it AFAICS), but if GCC _thinks_ that the 
> function does return, it will issue the above-mentioned 
> warning:
> 
> /usr/src/linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:10: warning: 'noreturn' function does return
> 
> And that's what your function will do. :-(
> 
> Yes, I also thinks that this behaviour is counter-intuitive. 
> Besides, I haven't found a gcc switch to turn this warning 
> off, which would be my next recommendation, since the GCC 
> heuristics is broken, of course.

so GCC should be fixed and improved here, on several levels.

	Ingo
--
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/