Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1686858
| From | Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" |
| Date | 2017-07-13 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u2RYd-1gM-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <u2ysy-5Ke-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <u2ysz-5Ke-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <u2zeW-6fP-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <u2QIO-ye-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <u2Rlv-Ow-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:47:48AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > What happens if you try the below patch instead of the revert? Any
> > chance the offending instruction goes away?
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > index 11433f9..beac907 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ __typeof__(__builtin_choose_expr(sizeof(x) > sizeof(0UL), 0ULL, 0UL))
> > might_fault(); \
> > asm volatile("call __get_user_%P4" \
> > : "=a" (__ret_gu), "=r" (__val_gu), "+r" (__sp) \
> > - : "0" (ptr), "i" (sizeof(*(ptr)))); \
> > + : "0" (ptr), "i" (sizeof(*(ptr))), "r" (__sp)); \
> > (x) = (__force __typeof__(*(ptr))) __val_gu; \
> > __builtin_expect(__ret_gu, 0); \
> > })
>
> The generated code is basically the same, only that now the value from
> the stack is stored in a register and written twice to RSP:
>
> ffffffff813676ba: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
> ffffffff813676bc: 48 89 45 c8 mov %rax,-0x38(%rbp)
> ffffffff813676c0: 45 31 ff xor %r15d,%r15d
> ffffffff813676c3: 48 89 45 a8 mov %rax,-0x58(%rbp)
> ...
> ffffffff81367918: 48 8b 4d a8 mov -0x58(%rbp),%rcx
> ffffffff8136791c: 48 89 cc mov %rcx,%rsp
> ffffffff8136791f: 48 89 cc mov %rcx,%rsp
> ffffffff81367922: e8 69 26 f1 ff callq ffffffff81279f90 <__get_user_4>
LOL. Why corrupt the stack pointer with a single instruction (reading a
zero from memory, no less) when you can instead do it with three
instructions, including two duplicates?
Anyway this seems like a clang bug to me. If I specify RSP as an input
register then the compiler shouldn't overwrite it first. For that
matter it has no reason to overwrite it if it's an output register
either.
--
Josh
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> - 2017-07-12 23:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-07-13 00:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> - 2017-07-13 00:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-07-13 00:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-07-13 00:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-07-13 20:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> - 2017-07-13 20:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-07-13 21:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Michael Davidson <md@google.com> - 2017-07-13 21:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-07-13 22:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Andrey Rybainin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 22:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-07-13 22:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> - 2017-07-13 23:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-07-13 23:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> - 2017-07-14 00:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> - 2017-07-13 23:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Andrey Rybainin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> - 2017-07-13 23:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/uaccess: Add stack frame output operand in get_user() inline asm" Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-07-14 00:00 +0200
csiph-web