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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 02:43:08 +0200 From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "maintainer\:X86 ARCHITECTURE \(32-BIT AND 64-BIT\)" <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: work around clang IAS bug referencing __force_order On Fri, Aug 21 2020 at 16:16, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 4:04 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 02:37:48AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> The gcc bug I linked to earlier is only fixed in gcc-6 onwards. Is that > > (based on https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602#c14) > >> good enough to remove force_order? I can test gcc-4.9 and gcc-5 to check >> if it would currently have any impact. And that test tells you what exactly? That your particular build of those compilers does not have the problem. A truly scientific approach. > I think checking the disassemblies with a pre-gcc-6 would be good > enough then; that bug isn't specific to this particular case. What? I clearly want a statement from the GCC people that this won't happen on pre gcc6 compilers and not just some 'works for me' statement based on a randomly picked compiler build. Thanks, tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists