linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] powerpc/uaccess: Implement unsafe_put

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: <CAKwvOdkKywb1KZ-SDwwuvQEmbsaAzJj9mEPqVG=qw1F5Ogv8rw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:33:09 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <patch-notifications@...erman.id.au>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] powerpc/uaccess: Implement unsafe_put_user() using
 'asm goto'

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:53 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 03:43:55PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > Segher, Cristophe, I suspect Clang is missing support for the %L and %U
> > output templates [1].
>
> The arch/powerpc kernel first used the %U output modifier in 0c176fa80fdf
> (from 2016), and %L in b8b572e1015f (2008).  include/asm-ppc (and ppc64)
> have had %U since 2005 (1da177e4c3f4), and %L as well (0c541b4406a6).

Thanks for all the references.  So it looks like we should have failed
sooner, if we didn't support those. Hmm...

> > Can you please point me to documentation/unit tests/source for
> > these so that I can figure out what they should be doing, and look into
> > implementing them in Clang?
>
> The PowerPC part of
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Machine-Constraints.html#Machine-Constraints
> (sorry, no anchor) documents %U.

I thought those were constraints, not output templates?  Oh,
    The asm statement must also use %U<opno> as a placeholder for the
    “update” flag in the corresponding load or store instruction.
got it.

>
> Traditionally the source code is the documentation for this.  The code
> here starts with the comment
>       /* Write second word of DImode or DFmode reference.  Works on register
>          or non-indexed memory only.  */
> (which is very out-of-date itself, it works fine for e.g. TImode as well,
> but alas).
>
> Unit tests are completely unsuitable for most compiler things like this.

What? No, surely one may write tests for output operands.  Grepping
for `%L` in gcc/ was less fun than I was hoping.

>
> The source code is gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c, easiest is to search for
> 'L' (with those quotes).  Function print_operand.
>
> HtH,

Yes, perfect, thank you so much!  So it looks like LLVM does not yet
handle %L properly for memory operands.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46186#c4
It's neat to see how this is implemented in GCC (and how many aren't
implemented in LLVM, yikes :( ).  For reference, this is implemented
in PPCAsmPrinter::PrintAsmOperand() and
PPCAsmPrinter::PrintAsmMemoryOperand() in
llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCAsmPrinter.cpp.  GCC switches first on the
modifier characters, then the operand type. LLVM dispatches on operand
type, then modifier.  When I was looking into LLVM's AsmPrinter class,
I was surprised to see it's basically an assembler that just has
complex logic to just do a bunch of prints, so it makes sense to see
that pattern in GCC literally calling printf.  Not drastically
different than my first toy compiler
https://nickdesaulniers.github.io/blog/2015/05/25/interpreter-compiler-jit/
(looking back at that post now knowing what relocations are, I feel I
should probably add a note that that's a problem that's being solved
there.  Didn't know it at the time).

Some things I don't understand from PPC parlance is the "mode"
(preinc, predec, premodify) and small data operands?

IIUC the bug report correctly, it looks like LLVM is failing for the
__put_user_asm2_goto case for -m32.  A simple reproducer:
https://godbolt.org/z/jBBF9b

void foo(long long in, long long* out) {
asm volatile(
  "stw%X1 %0, %1\n\t"
  "stw%X1 %L0, %L1"
  ::"r"(in), "m"(*out));
}
prints (in GCC):
foo:
  stw 3, 0(5)
  stw 4, 4(5)
  blr
(first time looking at ppc assembler, seems constants and registers
are not as easy to distinguish,
https://developer.ibm.com/technologies/linux/articles/l-ppc/ say "Get
used to it." LOL, ok).
so that's "store word from register 3 into dereference of register 5
plus 0, then store word from register 4 into dereference of register 5
plus 4?"  Guessing the ppc32 abi is ILP32 putting long long's into two
separate registers?
Seems easy to implement in LLVM (short of those modes/small data operands).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81767
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers