linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get

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]

Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:01:39 +0300
From:   Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Bernhard Rosenkränzer 
        <Bernhard.Rosenkranzer@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in
 get_user() inline asm"

2017-07-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>:

>
> After doing some testing, I don't think this approach is going to work
> after all.  In addition to forcing the stack frame, it also causes GCC
> to add an unnecessary extra instruction to the epilogue of each affected
> function:
>
>   lea    -0x10(%rbp),%rsp
>
> We shouldn't be inserting extra instructions like that.  I also don't
> think the other suggestion of turning the '__sp' register variable into
> a global variable is a very good solution either, as that just wastes
> memory for no reason.
>

Wastes memory? How is that wastes memory? That doesn't make any sense.

> It would be nice if both compilers could agree on a way to support this.
>
> --
> Josh