linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/asm updates for v5.10

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:33:49 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/asm updates for v5.10

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 12:24 PM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think it is even possible to write to a part of a register in the asm. An example:

But this example is the *reverse* of what I worry about.

I worry about the asm writing not to a "part" of a register, but to
*more* than we told the compiler we'd write to.

If we told the compiler we're only writing to %al, then I could see
the compiler using %ah for something, and scheduling that "somethihng"
to after the inline asm that said it was only modifying the low bits.

Now, I do believe you're right that gcc (and probably clang) simply
doesn't track %ah liveness and clobbering separately from %al.

But it still stinks as a concept when this isn't actually documented
anywhere I can tell.

See my worry?

                Linus