On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 01:30:27PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > From: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The CRn accessor functions use __force_order as a dummy operand to > prevent the compiler from reordering CRn reads/writes with respect to > each other. > > The fact that the asm is volatile should be enough to prevent this: > volatile asm statements should be executed in program order. However GCC > 4.9.x and 5.x have a bug that might result in reordering. This was fixed > in 8.1, 7.3 and 6.5. Versions prior to these, including 5.x and 4.9.x, > may reorder volatile asm statements with respect to each other. > > There are some issues with __force_order as implemented: > - It is used only as an input operand for the write functions, and hence > doesn't do anything additional to prevent reordering writes. > - It allows memory accesses to be cached/reordered across write > functions, but CRn writes affect the semantics of memory accesses, so > this could be dangerous. > - __force_order is not actually defined in the kernel proper, but the > LLVM toolchain can in some cases require a definition: LLVM (as well > as GCC 4.9) requires it for PIE code, which is why the compressed > kernel has a definition, but also the clang integrated assembler may > consider the address of __force_order to be significant, resulting in > a reference that requires a definition. > > Fix this by: > - Using a memory clobber for the write functions to additionally prevent > caching/reordering memory accesses across CRn writes. > - Using a dummy input operand with an arbitrary constant address for the > read functions, instead of a global variable. This will prevent reads > from being reordered across writes, while allowing memory loads to be > cached/reordered across CRn reads, which should be safe. > > Signed-off-by: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxxx> In the primary thread for this patch I sent a Reviewed tag, but for good measure, here it is again: Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Kees Cook
