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, 31 Aug 2017 17:36:45 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <>,
        "" <>,
        LKML <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Alexander Potapenko <>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] x86/asm: Use ASM_CALL() macro for inline asm
 statements with call instructions

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 04:50:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:11:20AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> > Inline asm statements which have call instructions can be problematic.
>> > GCC doesn't know about the call instructions, so in some cases it can
>> > insert the asm before setting up the frame pointer.  This can result in
>> > bad stack traces when unwinding from the called function.
>> >
>> > Previously we worked around this issue by listing the stack pointer as
>> > an input/output constraint for the inline asm.  That works for GCC, but
>> > unfortunately it doesn't work for Clang.  In fact, it causes Clang to
>> > corrupt the stack pointer.
>> Sounds like it ought to get fixed regardless and then it might as well
>> do the right thing ;-)
> There was some disagreement about what the "right thing" is because it's
> an undocumented and unintuitive interface.
> And I use the term "interface" loosely.  It was apparently a side effect
> which was mentioned to me on the GCC mailing list.

Yes, as far as I understand, there is just no defined semantics for
this. Passing sp as is when asm block asks to pass in sp looks like a
perfectly reasonable thing to do (also faster code). We could use
something like asm("..." ::: "frame"), but we don't have this in

Powered by blists - more mailing lists