linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] tools/memory-model: Remove (dep ; rfi) from ppo

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: <20190226153957.GN4072@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:39:57 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tools/memory-model: Remove (dep ; rfi) from ppo

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 03:47:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I must confess to not being all that sympathetic to code that takes
> > advantage of happenstance stack-frame layout.  Is there some reason
> > we need that?
> 
> Not that I'm aware; but if it gets this 'obvious' case wrong, I worry
> what else it gets wrong.
> 
> At the very least we should get this fixed and compile a kernel with the
> fixed compiler to see what (if anything) changes in the generated code
> and analyse the changes (if any) to make sure we were ok (or not).
> 
> I mean; yes that example is UB, but the result is also clearly batshit
> insane.

My understanding is that their goal is better analysis of pointer
aliasing, and that this case is a side effect.

							Thanx, Paul