linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/asm: Replace __force

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: <CANiq72=jwj0xocJ7iAkntbnHDQphL79XcPREz1qpW0yqrMsz4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:19:25 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        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>,
        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>, nadav.amit@...il.com,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/asm: Replace __force_order with memory clobber

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:33 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> + * The compiler should not reorder volatile asm, however older versions of GCC
> + * had a bug (which was fixed in 8.1, 7.3 and 6.5) where they could sometimes
> + * reorder volatile asm. The write functions are not a problem since they have
> + * memory clobbers preventing reordering. To prevent reads from being reordered
> + * with respect to writes, use a dummy memory operand.

I see you added the information to the commit message, but I'd still
reword this to something like:

"The compiler should not reorder volatile asm, however GCC 4.9.x and
5.x have a bug where they could sometimes reorder volatile asm. The
bug was fixed in 8.1, 7.3 and 6.5. The write functions are not a
problem since they have memory clobbers preventing reordering. To
prevent reads from being reordered with respect to writes, use a dummy
memory operand."

The important point is that 4.9.x and 5.x *have* the bug and that is
the reason for having the hack. In the old wording it seems like the
bug is no more. Then one wonders why the hack is still there (i.e.
perhaps because we don't trust it, perhaps to support the rest of the
minor versions which are newer, perhaps to avoid regressions, perhaps
only the comment was updated, etc.).

Cheers,
Miguel