linux-kernel - Re: static_branch/jump

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]

Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 23:39:49 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     David Malcolm <dmalcolm@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: static_branch/jump_label vs branch merging

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 05:07:15PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:

> You've built a very specific thing out of asm-goto to fulfil the tough
> requirements you outlined above - as well as the nops, there's a thing
> in another section to contend with.
> 
> How to merge these asm-goto constructs?

By calling the function less, you emit less of them. Which then brings
us back to the whole pure/const thing.

> Doing so feels very special-case to the kernel and not something that
> other GCC users would find useful.

Doesn't it boil down to 'fixing' the pure/const vs asm-goto interaction?
I could imagine that having that interaction fixed could allow other
creative uses.