linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] powerpc/bug: Remove specific powerpc BUG_ON() and WARN

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210826153048.GD1583@gate.crashing.org>
Date:   Thu, 26 Aug 2021 10:30:48 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] powerpc/bug: Remove specific powerpc BUG_ON() and WARN_ON() on PPC32

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 01:04:36AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Excerpts from Segher Boessenkool's message of August 27, 2021 12:37 am:
> >> No, they are all dispatched and issue to the BRU for execution. It's 
> >> trivial to construct a test of a lot of not taken branches in a row
> >> and time a loop of it to see it executes at 1 cycle per branch.
> > 
> > (s/dispatched/issued/)
> 
> ?

Dispatch is from decode to the issue queues.  Issue is from there to
execution units.  Dispatch is in-order, issue is not.

> >> How could it validate prediction without issuing? It wouldn't know when
> >> sources are ready.
> > 
> > In the backend.  But that is just how it worked on older cores :-/
> 
> Okay. I don't know about older cores than POWER9. Backend would normally 
> include execution though.
> Only other place you could do it if you don't
> issue/exec would be after it goes back in order, like completion.

You do not have to do the verification in-order: the insn cannot finish
until it is no longer speculative, that takes care of all ordering
needed.

> But that would be horrible for mispredict penalty.

See the previous point.  Also, any insn known to be mispredicted can be
flushed immediately anyway.

> >> >> The first problem seems like the show stopper though. AFAIKS it would 
> >> >> need a special builtin support that does something to create the table
> >> >> entry, or a guarantee that we could put an inline asm right after the
> >> >> builtin as a recognized pattern and that would give us the instruction
> >> >> following the trap.
> >> > 
> >> > I'm not quite sure what this means.  Can't you always just put a
> >> > 
> >> > bla:	asm("");
> >> > 
> >> > in there, and use the address of "bla"?
> >> 
> >> Not AFAIKS. Put it where?
> > 
> > After wherever you want to know the address after.  You will have to
> > make sure they stay together somehow.
> 
> I still don't follow.

some_thing_you_want_to_know_the_address_after_let_us_call_it_A;
empty_asm_that_we_can_take_the_address_of_known_as_B;

You have to make sure the compiler keeps A and B together, does not
insert anything between them, does put them in the assembler output in
the same fragment, etc.

> If you could give a built in that put a label at the address of the trap 
> instruction that could be used later by inline asm then that could work
> too:
> 
>     __builtin_labeled_trap("1:");
>     asm ("    .section __bug_table,\"aw\"  \n\t"
>          "2:  .4byte 1b - 2b               \n\t"
>          "    .previous");

How could a compiler do anything like that?!


Segher