Message-ID: <1428677155.3377.17.camel@stressinduktion.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG/PATCH] kernel RNG and its secrets
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
To: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, mancha <mancha1@zoho.com>,
        tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
        dborkman@redhat.com
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:45:55 +0200
In-Reply-To: <2115964.QxtQ6rHSkc@tauon>
References: <20150318095345.GA12923@zoho.com> <1697288.aUGCRhyl06@tauon>
	 <1428675960.3377.8.camel@stressinduktion.org> <2115964.QxtQ6rHSkc@tauon>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2438
Lines: 73

On Fr, 2015-04-10 at 16:36 +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> Am Freitag, 10. April 2015, 16:26:00 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
> 
> Hi Hannes,
> 
> >On Fr, 2015-04-10 at 16:09 +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> >> Am Freitag, 10. April 2015, 16:00:03 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
> >> 
> >> Hi Hannes,
> >> 
> >> >On Fr, 2015-04-10 at 15:25 +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> >> >> I would like to bring up that topic again as I did some more analyses:
> >> >> 
> >> >> For testing I used the following code:
> >> >> 
> >> >> static inline void memset_secure(void *s, int c, size_t n)
> >> >> {
> >> >> 
> >> >>         memset(s, c, n);
> >> >> 	
> >> >> 	BARRIER
> >> >> 
> >> >> }
> >> >> 
> >> >> where BARRIER is defined as:
> >> >> 
> >> >> (1) __asm__ __volatile__("" : "=r" (s) : "0" (s));
> >> >> 
> >> >> (2) __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory");
> >> >> 
> >> >> (3) __asm__ __volatile__("" : "=r" (s) : "0" (s) : "memory");
> >> >
> >> >Hm, I wonder a little bit...
> >> >
> >> >Could you quickly test if you replace (s) with (n) just for the fun of
> >> >it? I don't know if we should ask clang people about that, at least it
> >> >is their goal to be as highly compatible with gcc inline asm.
> >> 
> >> Using
> >> 
> >>  __asm__ __volatile__("" : "=r" (n) : "0" (n) : "memory");
> >> 
> >> clang O2/3: no mov
> >> 
> >> gcc O2/3: mov present
> >> 
> >> ==> not good
> >
> >I suspected a problem in how volatile with non-present output args could
> >be different, but this seems not to be the case.
> >
> >I would contact llvm/clang mailing list and ask. Maybe there is a
> >problem? It seems kind of strange to me...
> 
> Do you really think this is a compiler issue? I would rather think it is how 
> to interpret the pure "memory" asm option. Thus, I would rather think that 
> both, gcc and clang are right and we just need to use the code that fits both.

Clang docs state that they want to be highly compatible with gcc inline
asm. Also, kernel code also uses barrier() in other places and in my
opinion, the compiler cannot make any assumptions about memory and
registers when using volatile asm with memory clobbers. But somehow
clang+llvm seems it does, no?

Thanks,
Hannes


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/