|
Message-ID: <202006221748.DA27A7FFC@keescook> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:56:21 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] stack: Optionally randomize kernel stack offset each syscall On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:05:10PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > But I still don't see anything _stopping_ the compiler from optimizing > this better in the future. The "=m" is not a barrier: it just informs > the compiler that the asm produces an output value in *ptr (and no other > outputs). If nothing can consume that output, it doesn't stop the > compiler from freeing the allocation immediately after the asm instead > of at the end of the function. Ah, yeah, I get what you mean. > I'm talking about something like > asm volatile("" : : "r" (ptr) : "memory"); > which tells the compiler that the asm may change memory arbitrarily. Yeah, I will adjust it. > Here, we don't use it really as a barrier, but to tell the compiler that > the asm may have stashed the value of ptr somewhere in memory, so it's > not free to reuse the space that it pointed to until the function > returns (unless it can prove that nothing accesses memory, not just that > nothing accesses ptr). -- Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.