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: <CAG_fn=UWGqg-U=CciYKOv11X6xQiQrQX5wKaoieE1co9v0rdBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Apr 2019 17:00:39 +0200
From:   Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
To:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:     Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        James Y Knight <jyknight@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Potentially missing "memory" clobbers in bitops.h for x86

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:52 PM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/29/19 8:54 AM, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> >
> >> Of course, this would force the compiler to actually compute the
> >> offset, which would slow things down.  I have no idea whether this
> >> would be better or worse than just using the "memory" clobber.
> > Just adding the "memory" clobber to clear_bit() changes sizes of 5
> > kernel functions (the three mentioned above, plus hub_activate() and
> > native_send_call_func_ipi()) by a small margin.
> > This probably means the performance impact of this clobber is
> > negligible in this case.
>
> I would agree with that.
>
> Could you perhaps verify whether or not any of the above functions
> contains a currently manifest bug?
Yes, I've checked that none of the above functions contain the bug.
For a patch adding 7 memory constraints to various functions in
bitops.h there are already 258 functions that change their size.
I've skimmed through those with the biggest diffs and didn't find any
flaws, but that can be just pure luck.
I would expect such bugs to be more likely with full program
optimization kicking in.

> Note: the atomic versions of these functions obviously need to have
> "volatile" and the clobber anyway, as they are by definition barriers
> and moving memory operations around them would be a very serious error.
>
>         -hpa
>
>
>
--
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer

Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-Straße, 33
80636 München

Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ