linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings

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: <20170302134629.GA13468@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:46:29 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings


* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:31:39AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:42:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:27:29PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I see no apparent reason for the ud2.
> > > > 
> > > > It's the possible division by zero. This change would avoid the ud2:
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-img-scb.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-img-scb.c
> > > > index db8e8b40569d..a2b09c518225 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-img-scb.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-img-scb.c
> > > > @@ -1196,6 +1196,8 @@ static int img_i2c_init(struct img_i2c *i2c)
> > > >         clk_khz /= prescale;
> > > > 
> > > >         /* Setup the clock increment value */
> > > > +       if (clk_khz < 1)
> > > > +               clk_khz = 1;
> > > >         inc = (256 * 16 * bitrate_khz) / clk_khz;
> > > > 
> > > >         /*
> > > 
> > > Ok, I see what gcc is doing.
> > > 
> > > 	clk_khz = clk_get_rate(i2c->scb_clk) / 1000;
> > > 	...
> > > 	inc = (256 * 16 * bitrate_khz) / clk_khz;
> > > 
> > > Because CONFIG_HAVE_CLK isn't set, clk_get_rate() returns 0, which means
> > > clk_khz is always zero, so the last statement *always* results in a
> > > divide-by-zero.  So that looks like a bug in the code.
> > > 
> > > However, I'm baffled by how gcc handles it.  Instead of:
> > > 
> > >   a) reporting a compile-time warning/error; or
> > > 
> > >   b) letting the #DE (divide error) exception happen;
> > > 
> > > it inserts a 'ud2', resulting in a #UD (invalid opcode).  Why?!?
> > 
> > Well, technically an invalid opcode is shorter code than generating an (integer) 
> > division by zero exception, right?
> 
> What does that matter if it's the wrong behavior?

Well, both terminate the program, and it's obvious if you look at it with a 
debugger what happened, right?

Thanks,

	Ingo