From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5.4 regression fix] x86/boot: Provide memzero_explicit
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:22:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191007142230.GA117630@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1dc3c53d-785e-f9a4-1b4c-3374c94ae0a7@redhat.com>
* Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07-10-2019 16:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The purgatory code now uses the shared lib/crypto/sha256.c sha256
> > > implementation. This needs memzero_explicit, implement this.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
> > > Fixes: 906a4bb97f5d ("crypto: sha256 - Use get/put_unaligned_be32 to get input, memzero_explicit")
> > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - Add barrier_data() call after the memset, making the function really
> > > explicit. Using barrier_data() works fine in the purgatory (build)
> > > environment.
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/boot/compressed/string.c | 6 ++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/string.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/string.c
> > > index 81fc1eaa3229..654a7164a702 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/string.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/string.c
> > > @@ -50,6 +50,12 @@ void *memset(void *s, int c, size_t n)
> > > return s;
> > > }
> > > +void memzero_explicit(void *s, size_t count)
> > > +{
> > > + memset(s, 0, count);
> > > + barrier_data(s);
> > > +}
> >
> > So the barrier_data() is only there to keep LTO from optimizing out the
> > seemingly unused function?
>
> I believe that Stephan Mueller (who suggested adding the barrier)
> was also worried about people using this as an example for other
> "explicit" functions which actually might get inlined.
>
> This is not so much about protecting against LTO as it is against
> protecting against inlining, which in this case boils down to the
> same thing. Also this change makes the arch/x86/boot/compressed/string.c
> and lib/string.c versions identical which seems like a good thing to me
> (except for the code duplication part of it).
>
> But I agree a comment would be good, how about:
>
> void memzero_explicit(void *s, size_t count)
> {
> memset(s, 0, count);
> /* Avoid the memset getting optimized away if we ever get inlined */
> barrier_data(s);
> }
Well, the standard construct for preventing inlining would be 'noinline',
right? Any reason that wouldn't work?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-07 14:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-07 13:47 [PATCH v2 5.4 regression fix] x86/boot: Provide memzero_explicit Hans de Goede
2019-10-07 14:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-10-07 14:11 ` Hans de Goede
2019-10-07 14:22 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2019-10-07 14:29 ` Hans de Goede
2019-10-07 14:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-10-07 15:20 ` Arvind Sankar
2019-10-07 15:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-10-07 18:42 ` Arvind Sankar
2019-10-07 19:36 ` Hans de Goede
2019-10-07 22:00 ` [PATCH] lib/string: make memzero_explicit inline instead of external Arvind Sankar
2019-10-08 11:33 ` [tip: x86/urgent] lib/string: Make memzero_explicit() " tip-bot2 for Arvind Sankar
2019-10-08 11:33 ` tip-bot2 for Arvind Sankar
2019-10-10 2:52 ` [PATCH] lib/string: make memzero_explicit " Dave Young
2019-10-10 6:56 ` Dave Young
2019-10-07 14:49 ` [tip: x86/urgent] x86/boot: Provide memzero_explicit() tip-bot2 for Hans de Goede
2019-10-07 14:49 ` tip-bot2 for Hans de Goede
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191007142230.GA117630@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nivedita@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=smueller@chronox.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).