linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/26] mm: asi: Make some utility functions noinstr compatible

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+i-1C1z35M8wA_4AwMq7--c1OgjNoLGTkn4+Td5gKg7QQAzWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 15:45:13 +0100
From: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>, Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>, 
	Jan Setje-Eilers <jan.setjeeilers@...cle.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, 
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, 
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, 
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>, 
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, 
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>, 
	Ofir Weisse <oweisse@...gle.com>, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, 
	Patrick Bellasi <derkling@...gle.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>, 
	Alexandra Sandulescu <aesa@...gle.com>, Matteo Rizzo <matteorizzo@...gle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, 
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/26] mm: asi: Make some utility functions noinstr compatible

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 at 21:27, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31 2024 at 18:44, Junaid Shahid wrote:
> What actually works by some definition of "works" is:
>
>        static __always_inline void __foo(void) { }
>
>        static inline void foo(void)
>        {
>                 __(foo);
>        }
>
>        static inline noinstr void foo_noinstr(void)
>        {
>                 __(foo);
>        }
>
> The problem is that both GCC and clang optimize foo[_noinstr]() away and
> then follow the __always_inline directive of __foo() even if I make
> __foo() insanely large and have a gazillion of different functions
> marked noinline invoking foo() or foo_noinstr(), unless I add -fno-inline
> to the command line.

In this experiment did you modify the definition of noinstr to remove
noinline? Otherwise I always get out-of-line calls (as you'd expect
from the noinline).

> Which means it's not much different from just having '__always_inline
> foo()' without the wrappers....
>
> Compilers clearly lack a --do-what-I-mean command line option.
>
> Now if I'm truly nasty then both compilers do what I mean even without a
> magic command line option:
>
>        static __always_inline void __foo(void) { }
>
>        static __maybe_unused void foo(void)
>        {
>                 __(foo);
>        }
>
>        static __maybe_unused noinstr void foo_noinstr(void)
>        {
>                 __(foo);
>        }

I don't see any difference with __maybe_unused: if the noinline is
there it's never inlined, otherwise with the wrapper technique it's
always inlined regardless of __maybe_unused:

static __always_inline void __big(void)
{
        asm volatile(
                "nop; nop; nop; nop; nop; nop; nop; nop; nop;"
                // and so on
                "nop; nop; nop; nop; nop; nop; nop; nop; nop;"
        );
}

static inline __section(".noinstr.text") void big_noinstr(void)
{
        __big();
}

When I call big_noinstr() from a noinstr function I see:

Dump of assembler code for function asi_exit:
   0xffffffff811e0080 <+0>:     endbr64
   0xffffffff811e0084 <+4>:     nop
   0xffffffff811e0085 <+5>:     nop
...and so on

I'm using GCC 14.2.0.

(I thought maybe this was because I used asm volatile nops to embiggen
the function but I see the same thing with a big stream of volatile C
statements).

I think we might have no choice but to always use
__always_inline/noinline for code that's called from both sections -
seems there's no way to tell the compiler "I don't care if you inline
it, but it we can't cross a section boundary". Am I missing anything?