linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC rebase 3/9] powerpc/64: Use barrier

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: <20180316204647.68417bc5@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Mar 2018 20:46:47 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>
Cc:     Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        "Bryant G. Ly" <bryantly@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
        Cédric Le Goater <clg@...d.org>,
        David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>,
        Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC rebase 3/9] powerpc/64: Use barrier_nospec in
 syscall entry

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 10:15:49 +0100
Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:18:23 +1000
> Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:15:52 +0100
> > Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@...e.de> wrote:
> >   
> > > On powerpc syscall entry is done in assembly so patch in an explicit
> > > barrier_nospec.    
> > 
> > Same comment as Linus for this -- the barriers are before the branch
> > here, so is it possible the branch instruction can be speculative
> > while the index is used to load the syscall table?  
> 
> As far as I understand barriers they separate code before the barrier
> and code after the barrier.
> 
> So inserting barrier_nospec after cmpldi means that the result of the
> cmpldi has to be known before any instruction following barrier_nospec
> that depends on the result can be executed. 
> 
> In many cases it is useful to put the barrier after a branch. It allows
> the compiler to speculate on the computed value at compile time and if
> it is constrained optimize out the branch. It may also result in the
> need to include many barriers and less readable code.
> 
> However, you have probably knowledge of the powerpc implementation of
> the barrier so if the semantic is actually different then please
> enlighten me.

I actually don't. I'm assuming we should be able to say that no previous
instruction is speculative when a subsequent one is executed.

But the branch instruction itself that is speculated, not the compare.

Usually even if all sources are ready, the pipeline may take in some
cycles after a branch, before that branch can finish executing and
squash speculation if it was wrong. Perhaps there is only a couple of
cycles of instructions that get a chance to reach execution units and
disturb any caches, but still there could be some window and I don't
think we would have architectural gurantees on that.

I'll try to ask around and see if there's any documentation we can
give you yet.

Thanks,
Nick