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]

Message-ID: <20200706162633.GA13288@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Mon, 6 Jul 2020 09:26:33 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     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,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO

On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 07:42:28AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 03:13:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:59:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:20:40AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 09:03:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

[ . . . ]

> > Also, if C goes and specifies load dependencies, in any form, is then
> > not the corrolary that they need to specify control dependencies? How
> > else can they exclude the transformation.
> 
> By requiring that any temporaries generated from variables that are
> marked _Dependent_ptr also be marked _Dependent_ptr.  This is of course
> one divergence of _Dependent_ptr from the volatile keyword.
> 
> > And of course, once we're there, can we get explicit support for control
> > dependencies too? :-) :-)
> 
> Keep talking like this and I am going to make sure that you attend a
> standards committee meeting.  If need be, by arranging for you to be
> physically dragged there.  ;-)
> 
> More seriously, for control dependencies, the variable that would need
> to be marked would be the program counter, which might require some
> additional syntax.

And perhaps more constructively, we do need to prioritize address and data
dependencies over control dependencies.  For one thing, there are a lot
more address/data dependencies in existing code than there are control
dependencies, and (sadly, perhaps more importantly) there are a lot more
people who are convinced that address/data dependencies are important.

For another (admittedly more theoretical) thing, the OOTA scenarios
stemming from control dependencies are a lot less annoying than those
from address/data dependencies.

And address/data dependencies are as far as I know vulnerable to things
like conditional-move instructions that can cause problems for control
dependencies.

Nevertheless, yes, control dependencies also need attention.

							Thanx, Paul