linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: Convert BUG() to use unreachable()

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: <84fc9c000912170917y4b2772d0n47bb4dabc74b91ef@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:17:11 +0100
From:	Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@...il.com>
To:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	"gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Convert BUG() to use unreachable()

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 6:09 PM, David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com> wrote:
> Jamie Lokier wrote:
>>
>> Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>>
>>> Use the new unreachable() macro instead of for(;;);
>>>        *(int *)0 = 0;
>>>          /* Avoid "noreturn function does return" */
>>> -       for (;;);
>>> +       unreachable();
>>
>> Will GCC-4.5 remove ("optimise away") the *(int *)0 = 0 because it
>> knows the branch of the code leading to unreachable can never be reached?
>>
>
> I don't know the definitive answer, so I am sending to gcc@...
>
> FYI: #define unreachable() __builtin_unreachable()

It shouldn't as *(int *)0 = 0; might trap.  But if you want to be sure
use
   __builtin_trap ();
instead for the whole sequence (the unreachable is implied then).
GCC choses a size-optimal trap representation for your target then.

Richard.

>
>> If GCC-4.5 does not, are you sure a future version of GCC will never
>> remove it?  In other words, is __builtin_unreachable() _defined_ in
>> such a way that it cannot remove the previous assignment?
>>
>> We have seen problems with GCC optimising away important tests for
>> NULL pointers in the kernel, due to similar propagation of "impossible
>> to occur" conditions, so it's worth checking with GCC people what the
>> effect of this one would be.
>>
>> In C, there is a general theoretical problem with back-propagation of
>> optimisations from code with undefined behaviour.  In the case of
>> __builtin_unreachable(), it would depend on all sorts of unclearly
>> defined semantics whether it can remove a preceding *(int *)0 = 0.
>>
>> I'd strongly suggest asking on the GCC list.  (I'd have mentioned this
>> earlier, if I'd known about the patch for other architectures).
>>
>> The documentation for __builtin_unreachable() only says the program is
>> undefined if control flow reaches it.  In other words, it does not say
>> what effect it can have on previous instructions, and I think it's
>> quite likely that it has not been analysed in a case like this.
>>
>> One thing that would give me a lot more confidence, because the GCC
>> documentation does mention asm(), is this:
>>
>>>      *(int *)0 = 0;
>>>      /* Ensure unreachableness optimisations cannot propagate back. *I/
>>>      __asm__ volatile("");
>>>      /* Avoid "noreturn function does return" */
>>>      unreachable();
>>
>> -- Jamie
>
>
--
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/