linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] -ffreestanding/-fno-builtin-* patches

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: <CAKwvOdmfiD1TNqRvFuX07BqonYzh1eKFE9mFmOpaSyrbR0d5Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:59:45 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        Eli Friedman <efriedma@...cinc.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
        Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@...il.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Vamshi K Sthambamkadi <vamshi.k.sthambamkadi@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dávid Bolvanský <david.bolvansky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] -ffreestanding/-fno-builtin-* patches

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 3:25 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Another thing that needs to be fixed is that at least lib/string.c needs
> to be compiled with -ffreestanding.
>
> gcc-10 optimizes the generic memset implementation in there into a call
> to memset. Now that's on x86 which doesn't use the generic
> implementation, but this is just waiting to bite us.
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/6EhG15

I'll let you send the patch for that this time.  (It's too bad godbolt
doesn't have newer versions of GCC for cross compilation...cant test
aarch64 gcc-10, for example.)  It would be interesting for sure to see
resulting differences in disassembly observed in lib/string.o with
-ffreestanding.

But, oof, that's not good.  Certainly impressive and powerful loop
idiom recognition, but wouldn't you consider it a bug that this
optimization should probably first check that it's not replacing part
of a loop with a potentially recursive call to itself?

Admittedly, we've had the same shenanigans with memcpy implemented in
terms of calls to __builtin_memcpy being lowered to infinitely
recursive calls...which feels like the same kind of bug.  ("You wanted
infinite recursion in the kexec purgatory image, right?" "No,
compiler, I did not.")  example: https://godbolt.org/z/MzrTaM
(probably should fix this in both implementations; at the least I feel
like Clang's -Winfinite-recursion should try to help us out here).

Feels almost like it may be difficult to provide an implementation of
memset without stepping on a landmine.  One thing I'd be curious about
is whether all of lib/string.c would need -ffreestanding, or if you
could move just memset to its own TU then use -ffreestanding on that.
A free standing environment must always provide a core set of
functions like memset, memcpy, memcmp, memmove, according to
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html.  Maybe those four
should be in a separate TU compiled as -ffreestanding, so that they
can never be lowered to calls to themselves (potentially infinitely
recursive)?
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers