linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] objtool: prefer memory clobber & %= to volatile & __COUNTER_

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: <20220125233128.GT614@gate.crashing.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:31:28 -0600
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        x86@...nel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] objtool: prefer memory clobber & %= to volatile & __COUNTER__

Hi!

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 03:26:36PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> I noticed in that report and
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202201190702.XNSXrMTK-lkp@intel.com/
> that gcc-9 was used.  I wonder if %= has been fixed in gcc-10+? Have
> there been other reports with gcc-10+ for my patch?

None of the %= code (which is trivial) has been changed since 1992.

> If this is fixed in gcc-10, then we can probably add a comment with a
> FIXME link to the issue or commit to replace __COUNTER__ with %= one
> day.  If not, then we can probably come up with a reduced test case
> for the GCC devs to take a look at, then add the FIXME comment to
> kernel sources.

Please open a PR?

> I'm more confident that we can remove the `volatile` keyword (I was
> thinking about adding a new diagnostic to clang to warn that volatile
> is redundate+implied for asm goto or inline asm that doesn't have
> outputs) though that's not the problem here and will probably generate
> some kernel wide cleanup before we could enable such a flag.

Its main value is that it would discourage users from thinking volatile
is magic.  Seriously worth some pain!

> Perhaps
> there are known compiler versions that still require the keyword for
> those cases for some reason.

It was removed from compiler-gcc.h in 3347acc6fcd4 (which changed the
minimum required GCC version to GCC 5).


Segher