lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: better patch for linux/bitops.h
From
Date
On May 5, 2016 3:18:09 PM PDT, tytso@mit.edu wrote:
>On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:34:50PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
>>
>> I completely fail to see why tests or compiler versions should be
>> part of the discussion. The C standard says the behaviour in
>> certain cases is undefined, so a standard-compliant compiler
>> can generate more-or-less any code there.
>>
>
>> As long as any of portability, reliability or security are among our
>> goals, any code that can give undefined behaviour should be
>> considered problematic.
>
>Because compilers have been known not necessarily to obey the specs,
>and/or interpret the specs in way that not everyone agrees with. It's
>also the case that we are *already* disabling certain C optimizations
>which are technically allowed by the spec, but which kernel
>programmers consider insane (e.g., strict aliasing).
>
>And of course, memzero_explicit() which crypto people understand is
>necessary, is something that technically compilers are allowed to
>optimize according to the spec. So trying to write secure kernel code
>which will work on arbitrary compilers may well be impossible.
>
>And which is also why people have said (mostly in jest), "A
>sufficiently advanced compiler is indistinguishable from an
>adversary." (I assume people will agree that optimizing away a memset
>needed to clear secrets from memory would be considered adversarial,
>at the very least!)
>
>So this is why I tend to take a much more pragmatic viewpoint on
>things. Sure, it makes sense to pay attention to what the C standard
>writers are trying to do to us; but if we need to suppress certain
>optimizations to write sane kernel code --- I'm ok with that. And
>this is why using a trust-but-verify on a specific set of compilers
>and ranges of compiler versions is a really good idea....
>
> - Ted

I have filed a gcc bug to have the preexisting rotate idiom officially documented as a GNU C extension.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70967
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-06 01:01    [W:0.067 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site