linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: slightly improve cache helpers

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: <20190722061940.GZ20882@gate.crashing.org>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jul 2019 01:19:40 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: slightly improve cache helpers

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 07:41:40PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> Hi Segher,
> 
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 01:01:50PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 12:58:46AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > 0000017c clear_user_page:
> > >      17c: 94 21 ff f0                  	stwu 1, -16(1)
> > >      180: 38 80 00 80                  	li 4, 128
> > >      184: 38 63 ff e0                  	addi 3, 3, -32
> > >      188: 7c 89 03 a6                  	mtctr 4
> > >      18c: 38 81 00 0f                  	addi 4, 1, 15
> > >      190: 8c c3 00 20                  	lbzu 6, 32(3)
> > >      194: 98 c1 00 0f                  	stb 6, 15(1)
> > >      198: 7c 00 27 ec                  	dcbz 0, 4
> > >      19c: 42 00 ff f4                  	bdnz .+65524
> > 
> > Uh, yeah, well, I have no idea what clang tried here, but that won't
> > work.  It's copying a byte from each target cache line to the stack,
> > and then does clears the cache line containing that byte on the stack.
> > 
> > I *guess* this is about "Z" and not about "%y", but you'll have to ask
> > the clang people.
> > 
> > Or it may be that they do not treat inline asm operands as lvalues
> > properly?  That rings some bells.  Yeah that looks like it.

The code is
  __asm__ __volatile__ ("dcbz %y0" : : "Z"(*(u8 *)addr) : "memory");

so yeah it looks like clang took that  *(u8 *)addr  as rvalue, and
stored that in stack, and then used *that* as memory.

Maybe clang simply does not not to treat "Z" the same as "m"?  (And "Y"
and "Q" and "es" and a whole bunch of "w*", what about those?)


Segher