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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 30 Oct 2020 08:51:27 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        "open list:BPF JIT for MIPS (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        "open list:BPF JIT for MIPS (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <>, Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Arvind Sankar <>,
        Randy Dunlap <>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <>,
        Kees Cook <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] bpf: don't rely on GCC __attribute__((optimize))
 to disable GCSE

On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 04:22, Alexei Starovoitov
<> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 05:28:11PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >
> > We already know that -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables get dropped,
> > hence this patch.
> On arm64 only. Not on x86
> > And we know -fomit-frame-pointer or
> > -fno-omit-frame-pointer I guess gets dropped, hence your ask.
> yep. that one is bugged.
> > We might not know the full extent which other flags get dropped with the
> > optimize attribute, but I'd argue that my list above can all result in
> > pretty bad bugs when accidentally omitted (ok, maybe not -fshort-wchar
> > or -fmacro-prefix-map, idk what those do) or when mixed with code that
> true.
> Few month back I've checked that strict-aliasing and no-common flags
> from your list are not dropped by this attr in gcc [6789].
> I've also checked that no-red-zone and model=kernel preserved as well.
> > has different values those flags control.  Searching GCC's bug tracker
> > for `__attribute__((optimize` turns up plenty of reports to make me
> > think this attribute maybe doesn't work the way folks suspect or
> > intend:
> There is a risk.
> Is it a footgun? Sure.
> Yet. gcc testsuite is using __attribute__((optimize)).
> And some of these tests were added _after_ offical gcc doc said that this
> attribute is broken.
> imo it's like 'beware of the dog' sign.
> > There's plenty of folks arguing against the use of the optimize
> > attribute in favor of the command line flag.  I urge you to please
> > reconsider the request.
> ok. Applied this first patch to bpf tree and will get it to Linus soon.
> Second patch that is splitting interpreter out because of this mess
> is dropped. The effect of gcse on performance is questionable.
> iirc some interpreters used to do -fno-gcse to gain performance.

That is absolutely fine. I only included the second patch to address
Daniel's concern that -fno-gcse could affect unrelated code living in
the same source file as __bpf_prog_run(), but if you don't care about
that, nor will I.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists