On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Just to clarify, when you say "this patch" you mean:
>>
>> 2fbd7af5af86 x86/syscall: Sanitize syscall table de-references
>> under speculation
>>
>> ...not this early MASK_NOSPEC version of the patch, right?
>
> I suspect not. If that patch is broken, the system wouldn't even boot.
>
> That said, looking at 2fbd7af5af86, I do note that the code generation
> is horribly stupid.
>
> It's due to two different issues:
>
> (a) the x86 asm constraints for that inline asm is nasty, and
> requires a register for 'size', even though an immediate works just
> fine.
>
> (b) the "cmp" is inside the asm, so gcc can't combine it with the
> *other* cmp in the C code.
>
> Fixing (a) is easy:
>
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h
> @@ -43 +43 @@ static inline unsigned long
> array_index_mask_nospec(unsigned long index,
> - :"r"(size),"r" (index)
> + :"ir"(size),"r" (index)
>
> but fixing (b) looks fundamentally hard. Gcc generates (for do_syscall()):
>
> cmpq $332, %rbp #, nr
> ja .L295 #,
> cmp $333,%rbp
> sbb %rax,%rax; #, nr, mask
>
> note how it completely pointlessly does the comparison twice, even
> though it could have just done
>
> cmp $333,%rbp
> jae .L295 #,
> sbb %rax,%rax; #, nr, mask
>
> Ho humm. Sad.
Are there any compilers that would miscompile:
mask = 0 - (index < size);
That might be a way to improve the assembly.
