linux-kernel - Re: objtool warnings in prerelease clang-9

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: <CAKwvOdk_faiFKC=hQ0beus5S_kcC0D3=k2rnja1wE_yMhCgPTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:30:27 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Craig Topper <craig.topper@...el.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: objtool warnings in prerelease clang-9

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 3:07 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> That is good news; and I'll strive to read the email in more detail
> in the morning when there is a better chance of me actually
> understanding some of it :-)
>
> But his here is something I felt needed clarification:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 01:53:51PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > Of interest are the disassembled __jump_table entries; in groups of
> > three, there is a group for which the second element is duplicated
> > with a previous group.  This is bad because (as explained by Peter in
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/27/118) the triples are in the form (code
> > location, jump target, pointer to key).  Duplicate or repeated jump
> > targets are unexpected, and will lead to incorrect control flow after
> > patching such code locations.
>
> > Also, the jump target should be 0x7 bytes ahead of the location, IIUC.
>
> Even if you mean 'at least' I'm fairly sure this is not correct. The
> instruction at the 'code location' is either a jmp.d32 or a nop5 (both 5
> bytes). The target must (obviously) be at an instruction boundary, but
> really can be anywhere (it is compiler generated after all).
>

Got it.  Issue should be fixed outright with:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64101 (I figured out how to fix the loop
unroller, so now we can proceed with the optimization instead of the
base conservative case).
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers