linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 00/16] Add support for Clang LTO

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: <20201203112622.GA31188@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:26:23 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/16] Add support for Clang LTO

Hi Sami,

On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 01:36:51PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> This patch series adds support for building the kernel with Clang's
> Link Time Optimization (LTO). In addition to performance, the primary
> motivation for LTO is to allow Clang's Control-Flow Integrity (CFI)
> to be used in the kernel. Google has shipped millions of Pixel
> devices running three major kernel versions with LTO+CFI since 2018.
> 
> Most of the patches are build system changes for handling LLVM
> bitcode, which Clang produces with LTO instead of ELF object files,
> postponing ELF processing until a later stage, and ensuring initcall
> ordering.
> 
> Note that arm64 support depends on Will's memory ordering patches
> [1]. I will post x86_64 patches separately after we have fixed the
> remaining objtool warnings [2][3].

I took this series for a spin, with my for-next/lto branch merged in but
I see a failure during the LTO stage with clang 11.0.5 because it doesn't
understand the '.arch_extension rcpc' directive we throw out in READ_ONCE().

We actually check that this extension is available before using it in
the arm64 Kconfig:

	config AS_HAS_LDAPR
		def_bool $(as-instr,.arch_extension rcpc)

so this shouldn't happen. I then realised, I wasn't passing LLVM_IAS=1
on my Make command line; with that, then the detection works correctly
and the LTO step succeeds.

Why is it necessary to pass LLVM_IAS=1 if LTO is enabled? I think it
would be _much_ better if this was implicit (or if LTO depended on it).

Cheers,

Will