linux-kernel - Re: gcc-10: kernel stack is corrupted and fails to boot

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, 13 May 2020 20:50:03 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: gcc-10: kernel stack is corrupted and fails to boot

> On May 13, 2020, at 7:20 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:51 PM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Are you sure LTO treats empty asm statements differently than full
>> memory barriers in regards to preventing tail calls?
>
> It had better.
>
> At link-time, there is nothing left of an empty asm statement. So by
> the time the linker runs, it only sees
>
>    call xyz
>    ret
>
> in the object code. At that point, it's somewhat reasonable for any
> link-time optimizer (or an optimizing assembler, for that matter) to
> say "I'll just turn that sequence into a simple 'jmp xyz' instead".
>

What, what?

LTO isn’t a linker taking regular .o files full of regular machine
code and optimizing it. That’s nuts.  LTO takes an intermediate
representation and optimizes *that*. This will contain actual
indications that something is inline asm.  If LTO starts rewriting
inline asm, then I bet all kinds of things will go wrong and this is
the least of our worries.  Also, trying to do the kinds of stuff LTO
does by looking at just machine code isn't going to work.

So the difference between:

asm volatile ("nop");

and

asm volatile ("");

will be, literally, the absence of the nop.  (And alignment changes, etc.)