linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] locking/rwsem/x86: Add stack frame dependency for some inline asm

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: <20170925190043.ub75ermaomaxyr32@treble>
Date:   Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:00:43 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Miguel Bernal Marin <miguel.bernal.marin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] locking/rwsem/x86: Add stack frame dependency for
 some inline asm

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:34:19PM -0500, Miguel Bernal Marin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 04:24:18PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 06:37:39PM -0500, Miguel Bernal Marin wrote:
> > > Some warning were showed by objtool using gcc 7.2.0
> > > 
> > > kernel/locking/rwsem.o: warning: objtool: up_read()+0x11: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > > kernel/locking/rwsem.o: warning: objtool: up_write()+0x17: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > > kernel/locking/rwsem.o: warning: objtool: downgrade_write()+0x22: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > > 
> > > which means gcc placed an inline asm function and its call instruction before
> > > the frame pointer setup.
> > >  
> > > This series forces a stack frame to be created before the call instruction
> > > by listing the stack pointer as an output operand in the inline asm statement.
> > > 
> > > Also to be easy to maintain and understand the operands from the extended
> > > assembler instructions were converted to named operands.
> > 
> > I've got a patch going around which will change the way we do this, so
> > you'll probably need to do a v3 after my patch gets merged.  I'll add
> > you to cc for the next revision.
> > 
> 
> With your new patches (at v4.14.-rc2) the warning is not seen any more,
> so I will send only the named operand patches (in separate thread), as
> this fix is not more needed.

Any chance you tested with GCC 7?  With GCC 6 and older you might still
see the warnings.

-- 
Josh