linux-kernel - Re: current_thread_info() not respecting program order with gcc 4.8.x

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: <20131119173312.GP16796@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:33:12 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org, Nathan Lynch <Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>
Subject: Re: current_thread_info() not respecting program order with gcc 4.8.x

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 05:02:20PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't have a ARM cross-compiler setup ready. Nathan could test
> it for us though.
> 
> It might shuffle things around enough to work around the issue, but with the
> approach you propose, I would be concerned about the compiler being within
> its rights to reorder the code into the following sequence:
> 
> struct thread_info *ptra, *ptrb;
> 
> ptra = current_thread_info();
> /*
>  * each current_thread_info() would have a clobber on *sp, which orders
>  * those two wrt each other.
>   */
> ptrb = current_thread_info();
> 
> load from ptra->preempt_count;
> /*
>  * however, the following accesses that depend on ptra and ptrb could be
>  * reordered if the compiler has no way to know that ptra and ptrb are
>  * aliased.
>  */
> store to ptrb->preempt_count;
> 
> One question that might be worth asking: with the local register variable
> extension (http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/Local-Reg-Vars.html#Local-Reg-Vars)
> (thanks to Jakub for the pointer), should the compiler consider two variables
> bound to the same register as being aliased or not ? AFAIU, local reg vars appear
> to be architecture-specific, so maybe there is something fishy on ARM ?

Might help if you ask where the GCC people are on CC ;-)
--
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/