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  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]
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:33:08 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>
Cc:	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Debian GCC Maintainers <debian-gcc@...ts.debian.org>,
	Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Random panic in load_balance() with 3.16-rc

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net> wrote:
>
> Attached is fair.s from Debian gcc 4.8.3-5. Does that look better? I'm
> going to try reproducing the problem with a kernel built by that now.

This looks better. For roughly that same code sequence it does
(ignoring the debug line and cfi information):

        subq    $184, %rsp      #,
        movq    (%r12), %rax    # sd_22(D)->parent, sd_parent
        movl    %edi, -156(%rbp)        # this_cpu, %sfp
        movl    %ecx, -160(%rbp)        # idle, %sfp
        movq    %r8, -184(%rbp) # continue_balancing, %sfp
        movq    %rax, -176(%rbp)        # sd_parent, %sfp
        movq    $load_balance_mask, %rax        #, tcp_ptr__
#APP
        add %gs:this_cpu_off, %rax      # this_cpu_off, tcp_ptr__
#NO_APP

so it updates the stack pointer before any spills, and it also doesn't
spill that constant value.

I still have no idea why it does the 4-byte rep stosl/movsl thing, but
that's a whole separate guessing game and might have something to do
with the fact that you do CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE and the 4-byte
form is one byte smaller.

I'm a big believer in not blowing up the I$ footprint, and I have to
admit to pushing that myself a few years ago, but gcc does some rather
bad things with '-Os', so it's not actually suggested for the kernel
any more. I wish there was some middle ground model that cared about
size, but not to exclusion of everything else. The string instructions
are not good for performance when it's a compile-time known small
size.

                 Linus
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists