linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] make use of gcc 9's "asm inline()"

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: <6C70DE15-0F83-4CBB-B25B-EFF50BC34DD3@vmware.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 18:26:07 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
CC:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] make use of gcc 9's "asm inline()"

> On Aug 29, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:36 AM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>> I'm curious what "the size of the asm" means, and how it differs
>> precisely from "how many instructions GCC thinks it is."  I would
>> think those are one and the same?  Or maybe "the size of the asm"
>> means the size in bytes when assembled to machine code, as opposed to
>> the count of assembly instructions?
> 
> The problem is that we do different sections in the inline asm, and
> the instruction counts are completely bogus as a result.
> 
> The actual instruction in the code stream may be just a single
> instruction. But the out-of-line sections can be multiple instructions
> and/or a data section that contains exception information.
> 
> So we want the asm inlined, because the _inline_ part (and the hot
> instruction) is small, even though the asm technically maybe generates
> many more bytes of additional data.
> 
> The worst offenders for this tend to be
> 
> - various exception tables for user accesses etc
> 
> - "alternatives" where we list two or more different asm alternatives
> and then pick the right one at boot time depending on CPU ID flags
> 
> - "BUG_ON()" instructions where there's a "ud2" instruction and
> various data annotations going with it
> 
> so gcc may be "technically correct" that the inline asm statement
> contains ten instructions or more, but the actual instruction _code_
> footprint in the asm is likely just a single instruction or two.
> 
> The statement counting is also completely off by the fact that some of
> the "statements" are assembler directives (ie the
> ".pushsection"/".popsection" lines etc). So some of it is that the
> instruction counting is off, but the largest part is that it's just
> not relevant to the code footprint in that function.
> 
> Un-inlining a function because it contains a single inline asm
> instruction is not productive. Yes, it might result in a smaller
> binary over-all (because all those other non-code sections do take up
> some space), but it actually results in a bigger code footprint.

For the record, here is my failing attempt to address the issue without GCC
support:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181003213100.189959-9-namit@vmware.com/T/