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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 22 Aug 2020 11:23:21 +0200
From:   Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        "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 Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:42 AM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Arvind,
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:55:52PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > Cc Segher.
> >
> > Segher, we were looking at gcc PR82602, where IRA could reorder volatile
> > asm's (reported on ARM). The fix was backported to gcc-6.
>
> I know ;-)
>
> > Do you know if
> > there is any reason the problem couldn't occur on x86 on older gcc
> > without the fix?
>
> No, I see no particular reason, at least GCC 5 seems vulnerable.  (The
> GCC 5 release branch was closed at the time this bug report was made,
> already).  There is no reason I see why it would work on x86 but fail
> elsewhere, either.
>

[1] says:

Current Minimal Requirements
...
====================== ===============  ========================================
        Program        Minimal version       Command to check the version
====================== ===============  ========================================
GNU C                  4.9              gcc --version

- Sedat -

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/changes.rst#n32

Powered by blists - more mailing lists