linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 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]

Message-ID: <87tubaks1x.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Sun, 03 Apr 2022 19:14:34 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>,
        Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <alviro.iskandar@...weeb.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
        Linux Edac Mailing List <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stable Kernel <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@...r.gnuweeb.org>,
        x86 Mailing List <x86@...nel.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Jiri Hladky <hladky.jiri@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] x86/delay: Fix the wrong asm constraint in
 `delay_loop()`

On Sun, Apr 03 2022 at 18:57, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29 2022 at 17:47, Ammar Faizi wrote:
>> The asm constraint does not reflect that the asm statement can modify
>> the value of @loops. But the asm statement in delay_loop() does modify
>> the @loops.
>>
>> Specifiying the wrong constraint may lead to undefined behavior, it may
>> clobber random stuff (e.g. local variable, important temporary value in
>> regs, etc.). This is especially dangerous when the compiler decides to
>> inline the function and since it doesn't know that the value gets
>> modified, it might decide to use it from a register directly without
>> reloading it.

Ignore me, I misread this part of the explanation.

Thanks,

        tglx