linux-kernel - Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH] x86, hweight: Fix UML boot crash

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: <20100612163444.GC28572@liondog.tnic>
Date:	Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:34:44 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Paolo Giarrusso <p.giarrusso@...il.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
	Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de>,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH] x86, hweight: Fix UML boot crash

From: Paolo Giarrusso <p.giarrusso@...il.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 06:01:44PM +0200

> >> First, ARCH_HWEIGHT_CFLAGS should IMHO be shared with UML. I.e., moved
> >> to arch/x86/Kconfig.cpu (which was born as Kconfig code shared with
> >> UML), or copied in UML (it's not defined, as far as I can see).
> >> Otherwise it just can't work. And I think that's it.
> 
> Just to be sure: by "that's it" I meant "this is the problem".
> You didn't answer here - did you see it? What do you think? Can you
> try the one-line fix at some point?
> Just to make it clear: I've not been actively developing UML (or
> almost anything in kernel space) for ages (~4 years), so it's unlikely
> that I'll try fixing this. It just happens that things on the UML
> front stayed mostly the same, so I thought that my knowledge of the
> code is still useful.

Cool :). However, according to Geert, this doesn't fix it:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127522065202435&w=2

It could be related to the -mregparm being broken on 32-bit UML since
Geert's UML "guest" is 32-bit. However, even if we fix this, it won't
be used since, as you said, UML doesn't do alternatives. Which means
that it doesn't make sense fixing it until there are no alternatives -
instead, we should simply fall back to the software hweight* stuff and
be done with it.

> > In that case, fixing this is either by rerouting the includes
> > (easiest, already in -tip) or adding alternatives support (harder,
> > needs volunteers :)).
> 
> Well, even doing just nothing should work, if you fix the trivial
> thing above (which at least for 64bit should work).

See above.

> >> A third note is that UML links with glibc, so it can have a different
> >> calling convention from the kernel. Say, on x86 32bit regparm doesn't
> >> work (in fact, -mregparm is set in arch/x86/Makefile and not in
> >> arch/x86/Makefile_32.cpu). And since popcnt is supported on 32bit, it
> >> might in theory make a difference for that case. But maybe those flags
> >> are simply fine, I didn't recheck the possible calling conventions.
> 
> > If this is also the case, the -fcall-saved-* stuff won't work on UML and
> > yet another way of doing "call *func" from within asm("...") and making
> > sure the callee doesn't clobber caller's regs will be needed for UML.
> 
> Hmpf... anyway, 64bit should be fine since there's just one calling
> convention, everywhere, and already regparm'ed.

Right, as I said, this would leave 32-bit broken which doesn't cut it
either for a subset of people using UML.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.
--
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/