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:   Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:00:42 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:     'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 09:37:26AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Paul E. McKenney
> > Sent: 01 July 2020 17:06
> ...
> > > Would an asm statement that uses the same 'register' for input and
> > > output but doesn't actually do anything help?
> > > It won't generate any code, but the compiler ought to assume that
> > > it might change the value - so can't do optimisations that track
> > > the value across the call.
> > 
> > It might replace the volatile load, but there are optimizations that
> > apply to the downstream code as well.
> > 
> > Or are you suggesting periodically pushing the dependent variable
> > through this asm?  That might work, but it would be easier and
> > more maintainable to just mark the variable.
> 
> Marking the variable requires compiler support.
> Although what 'volatile register int foo;' means might be interesting.
> 
> So I was thinking that in the case mentioned earlier you do:
> 	ptr += LAUNDER(offset & 1);
> to ensure the compiler didn't convert to:
> 	if (offset & 1) ptr++;
> (Which is probably a pessimisation - the reverse is likely better.)

Indeed, Akshat's prototype follows the "volatile" qualifier in many
ways.  https://github.com/AKG001/gcc/

							Thanx, Paul