Message-ID: <CAKwvOdkinv0dSuuTV7xTwqOVChpZM=Mu0GvEoAQYTtiXXtcERg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:51:32 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler.h: Fix barrier_data() on clang

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 2:26 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Commit
>   815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h mutually exclusive")
>
> neglected to copy barrier_data() from compiler-gcc.h into
> compiler-clang.h. The definition in compiler-gcc.h was really to work
> around clang's more aggressive optimization, so this broke
> barrier_data() on clang, and consequently memzero_explicit() as well.
>
> For example, this results in at least the memzero_explicit() call in
> lib/crypto/sha256.c:sha256_transform() being optimized away by clang.
>
> Fix this by moving the definition of barrier_data() into compiler.h.
>
> Also move the gcc/clang definition of barrier() into compiler.h,
> __memory_barrier() is icc-specific (and barrier() is already defined
> using it in compiler-intel.h) and doesn't belong in compiler.h.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
> Fixes: 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h mutually exclusive")

Thanks for the patch! Curious how you spotted this? My mistake for
missing it.  Definite difference in the disassembly before/after.

Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Tested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>

akpm@ would you mind picking this up when you have a chance?

See also:
commit 7829fb09a2b4 ("lib: make memzero_explicit more robust against
dead store elimination")

I'm pretty sure `man 3 explicit_bzero` was created in libc for this
exact problem, though the manual page is an interesting read.

> ---
>  include/linux/compiler-clang.h |  6 ------
>  include/linux/compiler-gcc.h   | 19 -------------------
>  include/linux/compiler.h       | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
>  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-clang.h b/include/linux/compiler-clang.h
> index cee0c728d39a..04c0a5a717f7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/compiler-clang.h
> +++ b/include/linux/compiler-clang.h
> @@ -52,12 +52,6 @@
>  #define COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW 1
>  #endif
>
> -/* The following are for compatibility with GCC, from compiler-gcc.h,
> - * and may be redefined here because they should not be shared with other
> - * compilers, like ICC.
> - */
> -#define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("" : : : "memory")
> -
>  #if __has_feature(shadow_call_stack)
>  # define __noscs       __attribute__((__no_sanitize__("shadow-call-stack")))
>  #endif
> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
> index 7a3769040d7d..fda30ffb037b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
> @@ -15,25 +15,6 @@
>  # error Sorry, your compiler is too old - please upgrade it.
>  #endif
>
> -/* Optimization barrier */
> -
> -/* The "volatile" is due to gcc bugs */
> -#define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory")
> -/*
> - * This version is i.e. to prevent dead stores elimination on @ptr
> - * where gcc and llvm may behave differently when otherwise using
> - * normal barrier(): while gcc behavior gets along with a normal
> - * barrier(), llvm needs an explicit input variable to be assumed
> - * clobbered. The issue is as follows: while the inline asm might
> - * access any memory it wants, the compiler could have fit all of
> - * @ptr into memory registers instead, and since @ptr never escaped
> - * from that, it proved that the inline asm wasn't touching any of
> - * it. This version works well with both compilers, i.e. we're telling
> - * the compiler that the inline asm absolutely may see the contents
> - * of @ptr. See also: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15495
> - */
> -#define barrier_data(ptr) __asm__ __volatile__("": :"r"(ptr) :"memory")
> -
>  /*
>   * This macro obfuscates arithmetic on a variable address so that gcc
>   * shouldn't recognize the original var, and make assumptions about it.
> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
> index 92ef163a7479..dfba70b2644f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/compiler.h
> +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
> @@ -80,11 +80,25 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_likely_data *f, int val,
>
>  /* Optimization barrier */
>  #ifndef barrier
> -# define barrier() __memory_barrier()
> +/* The "volatile" is due to gcc bugs */
> +# define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory")
>  #endif
>
>  #ifndef barrier_data
> -# define barrier_data(ptr) barrier()
> +/*
> + * This version is i.e. to prevent dead stores elimination on @ptr
> + * where gcc and llvm may behave differently when otherwise using
> + * normal barrier(): while gcc behavior gets along with a normal
> + * barrier(), llvm needs an explicit input variable to be assumed
> + * clobbered. The issue is as follows: while the inline asm might
> + * access any memory it wants, the compiler could have fit all of
> + * @ptr into memory registers instead, and since @ptr never escaped
> + * from that, it proved that the inline asm wasn't touching any of
> + * it. This version works well with both compilers, i.e. we're telling
> + * the compiler that the inline asm absolutely may see the contents
> + * of @ptr. See also: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15495
> + */
> +# define barrier_data(ptr) __asm__ __volatile__("": :"r"(ptr) :"memory")
>  #endif
>
>  /* workaround for GCC PR82365 if needed */
> --
> 2.26.2
>


-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

Powered by blists - more mailing lists