linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/hweight: Fix and improve __arch

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: <CAFULd4YwQ3dcRwugyr9-GUWbVh2cREu6qNQctKG2S5JpoEfQcg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 21:54:25 +0100
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/hweight: Fix and improve __arch_hweight{32,64}() assembly

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 9:45 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 09:35:42PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 9:12 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 09:08:04PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > > a) Use ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT to prevent inline asm that includes call
> > > > instruction from being scheduled before the frame pointer gets set
> > > > up by the containing function, causing objtool to print a "call
> > > > without frame pointer save/setup" warning.
> > >
> > > The other two are ok but this is new. How do you trigger this? I've never seen
> > > it in my randconfig builds...
> >
> > It is not triggered now, but without this constraint, nothing prevents
> > the compiler from scheduling the insn in front of frame creation.
>
> Can you please stop with this silliness?
>
> When we start doing git archeology months, years from now, it should be
> perfectly clear why a commit was done. This one is not. So either the compiler
> is doing the bad scheduling or it isn't. Things can't just work by chance.
>
> Geez.

Ok, so let it be your way and let's just sweep the issue under the carpet.

BR,
Uros.