linux-kernel - Re: mmotm 2020-05-13-20-30 uploaded (objtool warnings)

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]

Message-ID: <20200529165011.o7vvhn4wcj6zjxux@treble>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 11:50:11 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, broonie@...nel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.cz,
        mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, x86@...nel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: mmotm 2020-05-13-20-30 uploaded (objtool warnings)

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 06:12:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:05:14AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 
> > It looks to me like GCC is doing the right thing.  That likely()
> > translates to:
> > 
> > #  define likely(x)	(__branch_check__(x, 1, __builtin_constant_p(x)))
> > 
> > which becomes:
> > 
> > #define __branch_check__(x, expect, is_constant) ({			\
> > 			long ______r;					\
> > 			static struct ftrace_likely_data		\
> > 				__aligned(4)				\
> > 				__section(_ftrace_annotated_branch)	\
> > 				______f = {				\
> > 				.data.func = __func__,			\
> > 				.data.file = __FILE__,			\
> > 				.data.line = __LINE__,			\
> > 			};						\
> > 			______r = __builtin_expect(!!(x), expect);	\
> > 			ftrace_likely_update(&______f, ______r,		\
> > 					     expect, is_constant);	\
> > 			______r;					\
> > 		})
> > 
> > Here 'x' is the call to user_access_begin().  It evaluates 'x' -- and
> > thus calls user_access_begin() -- before the call to
> > ftrace_likely_update().
> > 
> > So it's working as designed, right?  The likely() just needs to be
> > changed to likely_notrace().
> 
> But if !x (ie we fail user_access_begin()), we should not pass STAC() on
> the way to out_err. OTOH if x, we should not be jumping to out_err.
> 
> I'm most confused... must not stare at asm for a while.

Yeah, I saw that call to ftrace_likely_update() and got distracted.  I
forgot it's on the uaccess safe list.

>From staring at the asm I think the generated code is correct, it's just
that the nested likelys with ftrace profiling cause GCC to converge the
error/success paths.  But objtool doesn't do register value tracking so
it's not smart enough to know that it's safe.

The nested likelys seem like overkill anyway -- user_access_begin() is
__always_inline and it already has unlikely(), which should be
propagated.

So just remove the outer likelys?

diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/csum-wrappers_64.c b/arch/x86/lib/csum-wrappers_64.c
index a12b8629206d..ee63d7576fd2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/csum-wrappers_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/csum-wrappers_64.c
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ csum_and_copy_from_user(const void __user *src, void *dst,
 	might_sleep();
 	*errp = 0;
 
-	if (!likely(user_access_begin(src, len)))
+	if (!user_access_begin(src, len))
 		goto out_err;
 
 	/*
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ csum_and_copy_to_user(const void *src, void __user *dst,
 
 	might_sleep();
 
-	if (unlikely(!user_access_begin(dst, len))) {
+	if (!user_access_begin(dst, len)) {
 		*errp = -EFAULT;
 		return 0;
 	}