linux-kernel - Re: READ_ONCE() + STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG == :/ (was Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops))

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:   Wed, 18 Dec 2019 10:35:01 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, dja@...ens.net,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: READ_ONCE() + STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG == :/ (was Re: [GIT PULL]
 Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops))

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:22:05AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 12.12.19 21:49, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 11:34 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> The root of my concern in all of this, and what started me looking at it in
> >> the first place, is the interaction with 'typeof()'. Inheriting 'volatile'
> >> for a pointer means that local variables in macros declared using typeof()
> >> suddenly start generating *hideous* code, particularly when pointless stack
> >> spills get stackprotector all excited.
> > 
> > Yeah, removing volatile can be a bit annoying.
> > 
> > For the particular case of the bitops, though, it's not an issue.
> > Since you know the type there, you can just cast it.
> > 
> > And if we had the rule that READ_ONCE() was an arithmetic type, you could do
> > 
> >     typeof(0+(*p)) __var;
> > 
> > since you might as well get the integer promotion anyway (on the
> > non-volatile result).
> > 
> > But that doesn't work with structures or unions, of course.
> 
> We do have a READ_ONCE on the following union in s390 code.
> 
> union ipte_control {
>         unsigned long val;
>         struct {
>                 unsigned long k  : 1;
>                 unsigned long kh : 31;
>                 unsigned long kg : 32;
>         }; 
> };
> 
> 
> In fact this one was the original failure case why we change ACCESS_ONCE.
> 
> see arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c

Thanks. I think we should be ok just using the 'val' field instead of the
whole union but, then again, when bitfields are involved who knows what the
compiler might do. I thought we usually shied away from using them to mirror
hardware structures like this?

Will