linux-kernel - Re: mmotm 2019-04-19-14-53 uploaded (objtool)

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:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:39:12 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        broonie@...nel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.cz,
        mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: mmotm 2019-04-19-14-53 uploaded (objtool)

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 09:07:01AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > index 22ba683afdc2..c82abd6e4ca3 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > @@ -427,10 +427,11 @@ do {                                    \
> > ({                                \
> >    __label__ __pu_label;                    \
> >    int __pu_err = -EFAULT;                    \
> > -    __typeof__(*(ptr)) __pu_val;                \
> > -    __pu_val = x;                        \
> > +    __typeof__(*(ptr)) __pu_val = (x);            \
> > +    __typeof__(ptr) __pu_ptr = (ptr);            \
> 
> Hmm.  I wonder if this forces the address calculation to be done
> before STAC, which means that gcc can’t use mov ..., %gs:(fancy
> stuff).  It probably depends on how clever the optimizer is. Have you
> looked at the generated code?

I have not; will do before posting the real patch.