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: <20200706182926.GH4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 6 Jul 2020 20:29:26 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.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 Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:26:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> 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.

If they do not consider their Linux OS running correctly :-)

> 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.

Today I added one more \o/