From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C198C433DF for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 08:03:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mother.openwall.net (mother.openwall.net [195.42.179.200]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6CE5A20789 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 08:03:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="l8HijPFn" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6CE5A20789 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel-hardening-return-19161-kernel-hardening=archiver.kernel.org@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 7797 invoked by uid 550); 25 Jun 2020 08:03:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact kernel-hardening-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Received: (qmail 7762 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2020 08:03:29 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=my2nyr72K0k6RU4vPxhUnXlcUiYtUEccfUZzce3A2lM=; b=l8HijPFnSmJUFCeni2RH/BQsZe SnS630V1vrOlnRI9CR2NaPH7G8xEf4ItWfpBvRelAM1d7JadZJCP3hR0LlFKEMoKIvGB1Pg7HYubD UjWa22xRXDLOnavbddcY1g6vFeOysV2xmfgTY8uyd62WHfVvdtFlWJ4WMfGK3Tug9H2OtE2WBu37N 95uOyyKiEtOw7bja05pbOa8xZr65GH8Co4P28TvPd4iUEao0XgpglQW/eHF3oV/3Gziu9L1fNssv9 Mz7XkfB3L/F6/nE6O4FC22lkjZerK3ekIcrdAeVoAK3FljwuYUDMfy57zByz2uok1SMMYfX69hxsi SbH5pV8g==; Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 10:03:13 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: Sami Tolvanen , Masahiro Yamada , Will Deacon , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Paul E. McKenney" , Kees Cook , clang-built-linux , Kernel Hardening , linux-arch , Linux ARM , Linux Kbuild mailing list , LKML , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO Message-ID: <20200625080313.GY4817@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20200624203200.78870-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <20200624211540.GS4817@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:31:36PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:15 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:31:38PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > > > This patch series adds support for building x86_64 and arm64 kernels > > > with Clang's Link Time Optimization (LTO). > > > > > > In addition to performance, the primary motivation for LTO is to allow > > > Clang's Control-Flow Integrity (CFI) to be used in the kernel. Google's > > > Pixel devices have shipped with LTO+CFI kernels since 2018. > > > > > > Most of the patches are build system changes for handling LLVM bitcode, > > > which Clang produces with LTO instead of ELF object files, postponing > > > ELF processing until a later stage, and ensuring initcall ordering. > > > > > > Note that first objtool patch in the series is already in linux-next, > > > but as it's needed with LTO, I'm including it also here to make testing > > > easier. > > > > I'm very sad that yet again, memory ordering isn't addressed. LTO vastly > > increases the range of the optimizer to wreck things. > > Hi Peter, could you expand on the issue for the folks on the thread? > I'm happy to try to hack something up in LLVM if we check that X does > or does not happen; maybe we can even come up with some concrete test > cases that can be added to LLVM's codebase? I'm sure Will will respond, but the basic issue is the trainwreck C11 made of dependent loads. Anyway, here's a link to the last time this came up: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20171116174830.GX3624@linux.vnet.ibm.com/