Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKwvOd=jmi_7LvZbS0PA5-zt62m5ZFPUNG7JtMQVmerCR63ebQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BDEF22F0-84A5-4A36-B153-13E6A4260922@zytor.com> <CAKwvOdnLt5qr_5ah86qdsocTxUbo_3X1y3PPRp1EZwt=__NxnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <dd1626ae-114f-3817-c8b2-f845e079bfc6@zytor.com> <CAKwvOdkEHqv7Ut8H6Rb+gSvfWsMHqO=E3f7yxm=06m9yEn=h6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <26B017D5-4063-46CB-8768-B0E5E7CD3838@zytor.com> <CAKwvOdk_4g5PsRUoLgOeWEwt+d0diyD_Ycx6s7LQsJrSMsBEuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <319FB971-ABB6-4BE7-969B-D87D84853196@zytor.com> <CAKwvOdmryseROx=iSs6CZ86-tr90Fni8RC_w6Y7nFSXGW=508g@mail.gmail.com>
 <31A5469A-176F-451F-886A-ECD649DDC78C@zytor.com> <CAKwvOdkpWZC4vWK8hDdgUGseTmK4Hz5uDHn_mP9yc=jbfdVPmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <12a870df-5f9d-94d1-8318-42cfff1bedab@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <12a870df-5f9d-94d1-8318-42cfff1bedab@redhat.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 May 2018 10:49:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdnq-H2M=psJMxo7k7HiEvZVY+z+4+geONwNZdBC9VmhvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [clang] stack protector and f1f029c7bf
To:     tstellar@redhat.com
Cc:     hpa@zytor.com, Alistair Strachan <astrachan@google.com>,
        Manoj Gupta <manojgupta@google.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@google.com>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>, sedat.dilek@gmail.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:35 AM Tom Stellard <tstellar@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/25/2018 10:31 AM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:53 AM <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> >> On May 25, 2018 9:46:42 AM PDT, Nick Desaulniers <
ndesaulniers@google.com>
> > wrote:
> >>> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:33 AM <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> >>>> On May 25, 2018 9:27:40 AM PDT, Nick Desaulniers
> >>> <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> >>> When you say
> >>>
> >>>> It still should be available as as inline, however, but now "extern
> >>> inline".
> >>>
> >>> Am I understanding correctly that native_save_fl should be inlined
into
> >>> all
> >>> call sites (modulo the problematic pv_irq_ops.save_fl case)?  Because
> >>> for
> >>> these two assembly implementations, it's not, but maybe there's
> >>> something
> >>> missing in my implementation?
> >
> >> Yes, that's what "extern inline" means. Maybe it needs a must inline
> > annotation, but that's really messed up.
> >

> What about doing something like suggested here:
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D37512#c17

> This would keep the definition in C and make it easier for compilers
> to inline.

The GCC docs for __attribute__((naked)) seem to imply this is a machine
specific constraint (of which x86 is not listed):
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.2/gcc/Function-Attributes.html

But let's try with source:
https://godbolt.org/g/aJ4gZB

Clang errors:
<source>:3:3: error: non-ASM statement in naked function is not supported
   unsigned long flags;
   ^

Is it valid to use assembly to place the results in %rax and mark the c
function somehow?

gcc doesn't support this attribute until 4.9 (but we can add a feature test
for attributes with gcc (unlike builtins)), but warns that:

warning: =E2=80=98naked=E2=80=99 attribute directive ignored [-Wattributes]

gcc 8.1 and trunk inserts a `ud2` instruction (what?!) (let me see if I can
repro outside of godbolt, and will file a bug report).
--=20
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers