linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/build changes for v4.17

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:   Wed, 4 Apr 2018 13:58:48 -0700
From:   Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        James Y Knight <jyknight@...gle.com>,
        Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/build changes for v4.17

El Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:33:19PM +0200 Arnd Bergmann ha dit:

> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:17 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> wrote:
> > El Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:30:07AM +0200 Peter Zijlstra ha dit:
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 11:06:58AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yes, Chrome OS R67 (currently dev, soon beta) will ship a kernel built
> >> > with Clang for multiple x86 Chromebooks.
> >>
> >> But there are still _known_ miscompilations....
> >
> > Our compiler team is looking into this (missing option
> > -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks)
> 
> Do you know if anyone is looking into __builtin_constant_p()
> optimization as well? We have a lot of uses of this gcc feature
> in the kernel, and if I remember correctly, clang implements
> this by basically always returning false for the cases we
> are interested in.
> 
> In most cases, this is used to implement a fast-path for a helper
> function, so not doing it the same way as gcc just results in
> slower execution, but I assume we also have code that behaves
> differently on clang compared to gcc because of this.

I think I didn't come (knowingly) across that one yet. Could you point
me to an instance that could be used as an example in a bug report?