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  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, 13 Aug 2020 19:28:57 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
        "maintainer\:X86 ARCHITECTURE \(32-BIT AND 64-BIT\)" <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
        Zhenzhong Duan <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Juergen Gross <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Andrew Cooper <>,
        LKML <>,
        clang-built-linux <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: work around clang IAS bug referencing __force_order

Nick Desaulniers <> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:
>> > + *
>> > + * Clang sometimes fails to kill the reference to the dummy variable, so
>> > + * provide an actual copy.
>> Can that compiler be fixed instead?
> I don't think so. The logic in the compiler whether to emit an

Forget that I asked. Heat induced brain damaged.

> I'd much rather remove all of __force_order.


> Not sure about the comment in arch/x86/include/asm/special_insns.h
> either; smells fishy like a bug with a compiler from a long time ago.
> It looks like it was introduced in:
> commit d3ca901f94b32 ("x86: unify paravirt parts of system.h")
> Lore has this thread:
> Patch 4:
> It seems like there was a discussion about %cr8, but no one asked
> "what's going on here with __force_order, is that right?"

Correct and the changelog is uselss in this regard.

> Quick boot test of the below works for me, though I should probably
> test hosting a virtualized guest since d3ca901f94b32 refers to
> paravirt.  Thoughts?

Let me ask (hopefully) useful questions this time:

  Is a compiler allowed to reorder two 'asm volatile()'?

  Are there compilers (gcc >= 4.9 or other supported ones) which do that?



Powered by blists - more mailing lists