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 17:17:05 -0400
From:   Arvind Sankar <>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <>
Cc:     Sedat Dilek <>,
        Segher Boessenkool <>,
        Arvind Sankar <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, 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 <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: work around clang IAS bug referencing __force_order

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 08:17:32PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 11:52 AM Sedat Dilek <> wrote:
> >
> > I am asking myself who is using such ancient compilers?
> There are many users/companies using older versions of compilers,
> kernels and everything. GCC <= 4.9 will still be used/supported (by
> third parties) for a handful of years at least.
> However, the important question is whether those users/companies care
> about running the latest kernels. Many of those definitely do not want
> to touch their kernel either. For those that do, there are several
> longterms to pick from that still support 4.9, as well as other
> workarounds.
> Thus I am usually in favor of raising the minimum whenever new hacks
> are required to be added. On the other hand, we already raised the
> version twice this year and it is not clear to me what is the minimum
> version we would need to go for to ensure this does not bite us.
> > If this is a real problem with GCC version <= 5, so can this be moved
> > to a GCC specific include header-file?
> > Thinking of include/linux/compiler-gcc.h or
> > include/linux/compiler_types.h with a GCC-VERSION check?
> That would be better if it can be done, yes.
> Cheers,
> Miguel

The fix landed in gcc 6.5, 7.3 and 8.1. The bug is presumably quite
difficult to actually trigger. As a sample data point, I verified that
7.1 vs 7.1+fix have no differences on 32-bit and 64-bit x86 defconfigs,
on current mainline.

Assuming we don't want to risk removing force_order, I'd suggest
- make it an input/output operand, so it enforces ordering fully.
- either restrict it to gcc < 8, or just provide a proper definition in
  some file (maybe arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c)?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists