linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] x86/asm: Carve out a generic movdir64b() helper for general usage

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: <20200924101506.GD5030@zn.tnic>
Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:15:06 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>, Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>
Cc:     'Dave Jiang' <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "jing.lin@...el.com" <jing.lin@...el.com>,
        "ashok.raj@...el.com" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
        "fenghua.yu@...el.com" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "kevin.tian@...el.com" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        "dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] x86/asm: Carve out a generic movdir64b() helper
 for general usage

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 08:24:46AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> static inline void movdir64b(void *dst, const void *src)
> {
> 	/*
> 	 * 64 bytes from dst are marked as modified for completeness.
> 	 * Since the writes bypass the cache later reads may return
> 	 * old data anyway.
> 	 */
> 	/* MOVDIR64B [rdx], rax */
> 	asm volatile (".byte 0x66, 0x0f, 0x38, 0xf8, 0x02"
> 	     : "=m" ((struct { char _[64];} *)dst),
> 	     : "m" ((struct { char _[64];} *)src), "d" (src), "a" (dst));

Now since you're so generous with your advice on random threads, please
explain what you're advising here?

The destination operand - in this case in %rax - is "destination memory
address specified as offset to ES segment in the register operand."

So what is the difference between:

	...(void *dst, ... )

	volatile struct { char _[64]; } *__dst = dst;

	...

	: "=m" (__dst)
	: "a" (__dst)

and

	...(void *dst, ... )

	...

	: "=m" ((struct { char _[64];} *)dst)
	: "a" (__dst)

and why?

Point me to the gcc documentation where this is explained.

To cut to the chase, I don't think you need to do that, otherwise clwb()
would be broken too but perhaps you know something I don't.

Looking at clwb(), I believe the proper specification should be:

	volatile struct { char _[64]; } *__dst = dst;

	...

	: "+m" (__dst)
	: "a" (__dst)

And if anything, the source specification should be something like that:

	volatile struct { char x[64]; } *__src = src;

	...


	"d" (__src)

because this tells gcc that the source operand would read 64 bytes
through the pointer in the %rdx reg.

So this ends up close to what you're saying but it is using local
variables to make the asm actually readable.

Lemme add Micha to Cc for sanity-checking:

Micha, the instruction is:

MOVDIR64B %(rdx), rax

"Move 64-bytes as direct-store with guaranteed 64-byte write atomicity
from the source memory operand address to destination memory address
specified as offset to ES segment in the register operand."

Do I need to tell gcc that both operands are referencing 64 bytes,
source operand is a memory reference, destination operand is an address
specified in a register?

What we have currently is:

		volatile struct { char _[64]; } *dst = __dst;

                /* MOVDIR64B [rdx], rax */
                asm volatile(".byte 0x66, 0x0f, 0x38, 0xf8, 0x02"
                             : "=m" (dst)
                             : "d" (from), "a" (dst));


Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette