linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][PATCH v3 14/17] static_call: Add static_cond

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wim-2aaFi_GNs5KmX4ykkgQjnRo5D4B9ZK+1Oz=kpp_2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 09:33:21 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v3 14/17] static_call: Add static_cond_call()

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 9:22 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
> I haven’t checked if static calls currently support return values, but
> the conditional case only makes sense for functions that return void.
>
> Aside from that, it might be nice for passing NULL in to warn or bug
> when the NULL pointer is stored instead of silently NOPping out the
> call in cases where having a real implementation isn’t optional.

Both good points. I take back my question.

And it aside from warning about passing in NULL then it doesn't work,
I wonder if we could warn - at build time - when then using the COND
version with a function that doesn't return void?

Of course, one alternative is to just say "instead of using NOP, use
'xorl %eax,%eax'", and then we'd have the rule that a NULL conditional
function returns zero (or NULL).

I _think_ a "xorl %eax,%eax ; retq" is just three bytes and would fit
in the tailcall slot too.

                Linus