linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] static_call: get rid of static_call

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: <YYrKdpACXxCQj09z@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 9 Nov 2021 20:22:30 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] static_call: get rid of static_call_cond()

On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 07:41:03PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 19:38, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 05:45:43PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > The main reason for the existence of static_call_cond() seems to be that
> > > in theory, when using the generic implementation of static calls, it may
> > > be possible for a compiler to elide the indirect call entirely if the
> > > target is NULL, while still guaranteeing that all side effects of
> > > argument evaluation occur as expected.
> > >
> > > This is rather optimistic: as documented by an existing code comment,
> > > both GCC and Clang (version 10) get this wrong, and even if they ever
> > > get it right, this is far too subtle to rely on for a code path that is
> > > expected to be used only by the 'remaining' architectures once all the
> > > best supported ones implement either the out-of-line or inline optimized
> > > variety of static calls.
> > >
> > > Given that having static_call_cond() clutters up the API, and puts the
> > > burden on the caller to go and check what kind of static call they are
> > > dealing with, let's just get rid of the distinction.
> >
> > No, static_call_cond() signifies the function can be NULL. Both gcc and
> > clang generate correct (but wildly ineffecient) code for this. Without
> > static_call_cond() the generic implementation will do a NULL deref.
> >
> > That is, static_call_cond() does properly encapuslate:
> >
> >         func = READ_ONCE(key.func);
> >         if (func)
> >                 func(ARGS);
> >
> > You can't take that out.
> 
> I actually address that in the patch.
> 
> AIUI, the compiler generates an indirect call to __static_call_nop(),
> right? So why not simply set .func to the address of
> __static_call_nop() when NULL is passed to update / the initializer?

Ooh, lemme go have a proper look then.