linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 13/29] arm64/build: Assert for unwanted sections

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: <CAKwvOd=ufk3G8moNb8Z1Ruw9hm1YkynZ5mQNf2k1FsmkXfCJiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 13:36:20 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/29] arm64/build: Assert for unwanted sections

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:32 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 01:28:02PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > commit 3193c0836f203a91bef96d88c64cccf0be090d9c
> > > Author: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> > > Date:   Wed Jul 17 20:36:45 2019 -0500
> > >
> > >     bpf: Disable GCC -fgcse optimization for ___bpf_prog_run()
> > >
> > > has
> > >
> > > Fixes: e55a73251da3 ("bpf: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF code")
> > >
> > > and mentions objtool and CONFIG_RETPOLINE.
> >
> > Thanks for the context.  It might be time to revisit the above commit.
> > If I revert it (small conflict that's easy to fixup),
> > kernel/bpf/core.o builds cleanly with defconfig+GCC-9.3, so maybe
> > obtool did get smart enough to handle that case?  Probably regresses
> > the performance of that main dispatch loop for BPF, but not sure what
> > folks are expecting when retpolines are enabled.
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > ~Nick Desaulniers
>
> The objtool issue was with RETPOLINE disabled.

Ah, sorry, in that case default-CONFIG_RETPOLINE+gcc-9.3:
kernel/bpf/core.o: warning: objtool: ___bpf_prog_run()+0x8d4: sibling
call from callable instruction with modified stack frame
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers