[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201022104805.GA1503673@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 12:48:05 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"kernel-team@...roid.com" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
"io-uring@...r.kernel.org" <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"keyrings@...r.kernel.org" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Buggy commit tracked to: "Re: [PATCH 2/9] iov_iter: move
rw_copy_check_uvector() into lib/iov_iter.c"
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:36:40AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.10.20 11:32, David Laight wrote:
> > From: David Hildenbrand
> >> Sent: 22 October 2020 10:25
> > ...
> >> ... especially because I recall that clang and gcc behave slightly
> >> differently:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/hjl-tools/x86-psABI/issues/2
> >>
> >> "Function args are different: narrow types are sign or zero extended to
> >> 32 bits, depending on their type. clang depends on this for incoming
> >> args, but gcc doesn't make that assumption. But both compilers do it
> >> when calling, so gcc code can call clang code.
> >
> > It really is best to use 'int' (or even 'long') for all numeric
> > arguments (and results) regardless of the domain of the value.
> >
> > Related, I've always worried about 'bool'....
> >
> >> The upper 32 bits of registers are always undefined garbage for types
> >> smaller than 64 bits."
> >
> > On x86-64 the high bits are zeroed by all 32bit loads.
>
> Yeah, but does not help here.
>
>
> My thinking: if the compiler that calls import_iovec() has garbage in
> the upper 32 bit
>
> a) gcc will zero it out and not rely on it being zero.
> b) clang will not zero it out, assuming it is zero.
>
> But
>
> a) will zero it out when calling the !inlined variant
> b) clang will zero it out when calling the !inlined variant
>
> When inlining, b) strikes. We access garbage. That would mean that we
> have calling code that's not generated by clang/gcc IIUC.
>
> We can test easily by changing the parameters instead of adding an "inline".
Let me try that as well, as I seem to have a good reproducer, but it
takes a while to run...
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists