linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile

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:   Wed, 9 Jun 2021 10:31:13 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile_if()

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 10:20 AM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 06:13:00PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 17:33, Segher Boessenkool
> > <segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > An alternative design would be to use a statement attribute to only
> > > > enforce (C) ("__attribute__((mustcontrol))" ?).
> > >
> > > Statement attributes only exist for empty statements.  It is unclear how
> > > (and if!) we could support it for general statements.
> >
> > Statement attributes can apply to anything -- Clang has had them apply
> > to non-empty statements for a while.
>
> First off, it is not GCC's problem if LLVM decides to use a GCC
> extension in some non-compatible way.

Reminds me of
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=whu19Du_rZ-zBtGsXAB-Qo7NtoJjQjd-Sa9OB5u1Cq_Zw@mail.gmail.com/
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers