linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] READ_ONCE: Drop pointer qualifiers when reading from scalar types

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: <20200422114807.GW26902@gate.crashing.org>
Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:48:07 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] READ_ONCE: Drop pointer qualifiers when reading from scalar types

Hi!

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:25:03PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 21/04/2020 17.15, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Unfortunately, dropping pointer qualifiers inside the macro poses quite
> > a challenge, especially since the pointed-to type is permitted to be an
> > aggregate, and this is relied upon by mm/ code accessing things like
> > 'pmd_t'. Based on numerous hacks and discussions on the mailing list,
> > this is the best I've managed to come up with.
> 
> Hm, maybe this can be brought to work, only very lightly tested. It
> basically abuses what -Wignored-qualifiers points out:
> 
>   warning: type qualifiers ignored on function return type
> 
> Example showing the idea:
> 
> const int c(void);
> volatile int v(void);
> 
> int hack(int x, int y)
> {
> 	typeof(c()) a = x;
> 	typeof(v()) b = y;
> 
> 	a += b;
> 	b += a;
> 	a += b;
> 	return a;
> }

Nasty.  I like it :-)

> Since that compiles, a cannot be const-qualified, and the generated code
> certainly suggests that b is not volatile-qualified. So something like
> 
> #define unqual_type(x) _unqual_type(x, unique_id_dance)
> #define _unqual_type(x, id) typeof( ({
>   typeof(x) id(void);
>   id();
> }) )
> 
> and perhaps some _Pragma("GCC diagnostic push")/_Pragma("GCC diagnostic
> ignored -Wignored-qualifiers")/_Pragma("GCC diagnostic pop") could
> prevent the warning (which is in -Wextra, so I don't think it would
> appear in a normal build anyway).
> 
> No idea how well any of this would work across gcc versions or with clang.

https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01054.html

This is defined to work this way in ISO C since C11.

But, it doesn't work with GCC before GCC 7 :-(


Segher