linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] implement DYNAMIC_DEBUG_RELATIVE

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: <20190506070544.GA66463@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 May 2019 09:05:44 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] implement DYNAMIC_DEBUG_RELATIVE_POINTERS


* Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote:

> On 09/04/2019 23.25, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> 
> > While refreshing these patches, which were orignally just targeted at
> > x86-64, it occured to me that despite the implementation relying on
> > inline asm, there's nothing x86 specific about it, and indeed it seems
> > to work out-of-the-box for ppc64 and arm64 as well, but those have
> > only been compile-tested.
> 
> So, apart from the Clang build failures for non-x86, I now also got a
> report that gcc 4.8 miscompiles this stuff in some cases [1], even for
> x86 - gcc 4.9 does not seem to have the problem. So, given that the 5.2
> merge window just opened, I suppose this is the point where I should
> pull the plug on this experiment :(
> 
> Rasmus
> 
> [1] Specifically, the problem manifested in net/ipv4/tcp_input.c: Both
> uses of the static inline inet_csk_clear_xmit_timer() pass a
> compile-time constant 'what', so the ifs get folded away and both uses
> are completely inlined. Yet, gcc still decides to emit a copy of the
> final 'else' branch of inet_csk_clear_xmit_timer() as its own
> inet_csk_reset_xmit_timer.part.55 function, which is of course unused.
> And despite the asm() that defines the ddebug descriptor being an "asm
> volatile", gcc thinks it's fine to elide that (the code path is
> unreachable, after all....), so the entire asm for that function is
> 
>         .section        .text.unlikely
>         .type   inet_csk_reset_xmit_timer.part.55, @function
> inet_csk_reset_xmit_timer.part.55:
>         movq    $.LC1, %rsi     #,
>         movq    $__UNIQUE_ID_ddebug160, %rdi    #,
>         xorl    %eax, %eax      #
>         jmp     __dynamic_pr_debug      #
>         .size   inet_csk_reset_xmit_timer.part.55,
> .-inet_csk_reset_xmit_timer.part.55
> 
> which of course fails to link since the symbol __UNIQUE_ID_ddebug160 is
> nowhere defined.

It's sad to see such nice data footprint savings go the way of the dodo 
just because GCC 4.8 is buggy.

The current compatibility cut-off is GCC 4.6:

  GNU C                  4.6              gcc --version

Do we know where the GCC bug was fixed, was it in GCC 4.9?

According to the GCC release dates:

  https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/releases.html

4.8.0 was released in early-2013, while 4.9.0 was released in early-2014. 
So the tooling compatibility window for latest upstream would narrow from 
~6 years to ~5 years.

Thanks,

	Ingo