linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86/asm: Make alternative macro interfaces more clear and consistent

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: <20170915161041.26lefip66zwjtrn4@treble>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2017 11:10:41 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86/asm: Make alternative macro interfaces more
 clear and consistent

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:45:29PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:28:30AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  a) uglifying the 15 or so relevant inline asm locations with ifdefs; or
> > >
> > > Actually I guess we could put the "sp" in a macro...  I'll try it.
> > 
> > Exactly. Do something like
> > 
> >    #ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
> >    # define EXTRA_ASM_CLOBBERS "rsp"
> >    #else
> >    # define EXTRA_ASM_CLOBBERS
> >    #endif
> > 
> > and then replace the nasty
> > 
> >         register void *__sp asm(_ASM_SP);
> >         ..
> >         "+r" (__sp)
> > 
> > games with just that EXTRA_ASM_CLOBBERS thing at the end of the clobbers.
> > 
> > Yes, you'd probably have to document that the alternative_call_2()
> > thing doesn't take a "input" argument, but a input_and_clobbers, but
> > all users do that anyway.
> > 
> > I dunno.
> 
> There's also alternative_call(), which doesn't yet have the '__rsp'
> annotation, but it probably should.  It has some callers which pass
> clobbers and some which don't, so its conversion would be trickier.
> 
> So my plan is to keep patch 3 of this series, which clarifies those
> alternative macro interfaces, and also separates the inputs from the
> clobbers.  That'll make it really easy to add something like
> EXTRA_ASM_CLOBBERS above.
> 
> In fact I'll probably keep patches 1-3, because they're all
> improvements.  Then I'll replace the original patch 4 (ASM_CALL) with
> the "sp" clobbers thing.

So I couldn't figure out how to make it any simpler than this:

#ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
# define ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS "sp"
# define ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS_APPEND , ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS
# define ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS_ARGS(args...) ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS, ## args
#else
# define ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS
# define ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS_APPEND
# define ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS_ARGS(args...) args
#endif


ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS is the normal one:

  asm volatile("call foo" : : : ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS);


ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS_APPEND is needed when combining the option with other
clobbers options, like:

  asm volatile("call foo" : : : "memory" ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS_APPEND);


ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS_ARGS is needed for the pesky alternative_call() macro
so it can work with the variadic argument:

  #define alternative_call(oldfunc, newfunc, feature, outputs, inputs,	\
  			 clobbers...)					\
  	asm volatile (ALTERNATIVE("call %P[old]", "call %P[new]",	\
  				  feature),				\
  		      : outputs						\
  		      : [old] "i" (oldfunc), [new] "i" (newfunc)	\
  		        ARGS_APPEND(inputs)				\
  		      : ASM_CALL_CLOBBERS_ARGS(clobbers))


So I *was* about ready to post something like the above.  But, of
course, the kbuild robot found that the new version of my patches
manages to crash GCC with a certain randconfig.

  https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82221

So the saga continues.  Now I've managed to break clang, sparse, and GCC
with each consecutive iteration of these patches...  I'm starting to
lose my faith in compilers.

-- 
Josh