linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4 1/2] x86/delay: Fix the wrong asm constraint in `delay

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:   Thu, 3 Mar 2022 00:35:27 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Alviro Iskandar Setiawan' <alviro.iskandar@...weeb.org>,
        Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
CC:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@...r.gnuweeb.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Hladky <hladky.jiri@...glemail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 1/2] x86/delay: Fix the wrong asm constraint in
 `delay_loop()`

From: Alviro Iskandar Setiawan
> Sent: 01 March 2022 11:34
> 
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 4:46 PM Ammar Faizi wrote:
> > Fortunately, the constraint violation that's fixed by patch 1 doesn't
> > yield any bug due to the nature of System V ABI. Should we backport
> > this?
> 
> hi sir, it might also be interesting to know that even if it never be
> inlined, it's still potential to break.
> 
> for example this code (https://godbolt.org/z/xWMTxhTET)
> 
>   __attribute__((__noinline__)) static void x(int a)
>   {
>       asm("xorl\t%%r8d, %%r8d"::"a"(a));
>   }

But this code isn't doing that.
In your example the compiler has looked at the static function
and realised that is doesn't use r8 so it need not be saved
even though it is a volatile register.

In this code the compiler knows %ax is being used, it just
doesn't know it is changed - so could assume the value
is unchanged.

The only code that is likely to break is:

int f(int d)
{
	d += 10;
	__delay(d);
	return d;
}

Which might manage to return the value of %eax modified by the asm.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)