linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10

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, 22 Apr 2020 11:47:27 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Martin Liška <mliska@...e.cz>,
        Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>,
        Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@...too.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:53 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:16:53PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > And as I talked to Boris, I would recommend to come up with a "configure" check
> > that a compiler does not optimize the key code sequence:
> >
> > $ cat asm-detect.c
> > int foo(int a);
> > int bar(int a)
> > {
> >   int r = foo(a);
> >   asm ("");
> >   return r;
> > }
> >
> > $ gcc -O2 -c asm-detect.c -S -o/dev/stdout | grep jmp
> > [no output]
>
> That is a good test to run at the beginning of the compilation I guess.
>
> Without the asm("") it produces:
>
> bar:
> .LFB0:
>         .cfi_startproc
>         jmp     foo@PLT
>         .cfi_endproc
>
> I'd like for LLVM folks to confirm that this is a good test for LLVM too
> Trying that here with clang gives:
>
> bar:                                    # @bar
>         .cfi_startproc
> # %bb.0:
>         jmp     foo                     # TAILCALL
> .Lfunc_end0:
>
> so this *looks* like it would work with LLVM too but I might be missing
> something...


LGTM https://godbolt.org/z/ExtHx7
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers