linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO

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, 24 Jun 2020 14:30:14 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:15:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:31:38PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > This patch series adds support for building x86_64 and arm64 kernels
> > with Clang's Link Time Optimization (LTO).
> > 
> > In addition to performance, the primary motivation for LTO is to allow
> > Clang's Control-Flow Integrity (CFI) to be used in the kernel. Google's
> > Pixel devices have shipped with LTO+CFI kernels since 2018.
> > 
> > Most of the patches are build system changes for handling LLVM bitcode,
> > which Clang produces with LTO instead of ELF object files, postponing
> > ELF processing until a later stage, and ensuring initcall ordering.
> > 
> > Note that first objtool patch in the series is already in linux-next,
> > but as it's needed with LTO, I'm including it also here to make testing
> > easier.
> 
> I'm very sad that yet again, memory ordering isn't addressed. LTO vastly
> increases the range of the optimizer to wreck things.

I believe Will has some thoughts about this, and patches, but I'll let
him talk about it.

Sami