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  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]
Date:   Wed, 06 May 2020 11:36:00 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <>,
        Christophe Leroy <>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,
        Paul Mackerras <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] powerpc/uaccess: Implement unsafe_put_user() using 'asm goto'

Segher Boessenkool <> writes:
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 05:40:21PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> >>+#define __put_user_asm_goto(x, addr, label, op)			\
>> >>+	asm volatile goto(					\
>> >>+		"1:	" op "%U1%X1 %0,%1	# put_user\n"	\
>> >>+		EX_TABLE(1b, %l2)				\
>> >>+		:						\
>> >>+		: "r" (x), "m<>" (*addr)				\
>> >
>> >The "m<>" here is breaking GCC 4.6.3, which we allegedly still support.
>> >
>> >Plain "m" works, how much does the "<>" affect code gen in practice?
>> >
>> >A quick diff here shows no difference from removing "<>".
>> It was recommended by Segher, there has been some discussion about it on 
>> v1 of this patch, see 
>> As far as I understood that's mandatory on recent gcc to get the 
>> pre-update form of the instruction. With older versions "m" was doing 
>> the same, but not anymore.
> Yes.  How much that matters depends on the asm.  On older CPUs (6xx/7xx,
> say) the update form was just as fast as the non-update form.  On newer
> or bigger CPUs it is usually executed just the same as an add followed
> by the memory access, so it just saves a bit of code size.

The update-forms are stdux, sthux etc. right?

I don't see any change in the number of those with or without the
constraint. That's using GCC 9.3.0.

>> Should we ifdef the "m<>" or "m" based on GCC 
>> version ?
> That will be a lot of churn.  Just make 4.8 minimum?

As I said in my other mail that's not really up to us. We could mandate
a higher minimum for powerpc, but I'd rather not.

I think for now I'm inclined to just drop the "<>", and we can revisit
in a release or two when hopefully GCC 4.8 has become the minimum.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists