linux-kernel - Re: Can we drop upstream Linux x32 support?

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:   Thu, 13 Dec 2018 11:28:28 -0500
From:   Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, tg@...bsd.de,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
        "H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, x32@...ldd.debian.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: Can we drop upstream Linux x32 support?

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Rich Felker:
> 
> >> If the compiler can handle the zeroing, that would be great, though not
> >> sure how (some __attribute__((zero)) which generates a type constructor
> >> for such structure; it kind of departs from what the C language offers).
> >
> > The compiler fundamentally can't. At the very least it would require
> > effective type tracking, which requires shadow memory and is even more
> > controversial than -fstrict-aliasing (because in a sense it's a
> > stronger version thereof).
> 
> It's possible to do it with the right types.  See _Bool on 32-bit Darwin
> PowerPC for an example, which is four bytes instead of the usual one.
> 
> Similarly, we could have integer types with trap representations.
> Whether it is a good idea is a different matter, but the amount of
> compiler magic required is actually limited.

If you do this you just have LP64 with value range restricted to
32-bit. This does not accomplish anything useful since it uses just as
much memory as normal LP64 but you don't get anything beneficial out
of it.

Rich