Cleanup commit 73679e50 ("compiler-intel.h: Remove duplicate
definition") removed the double definition of __memory_barrier()
intrinsics.

However, in doing so, it also removed the preceding #undef barrier by
accident, meaning, the actual barrier() macro from compiler-gcc.h with
inline asm is still in place as __GNUC__ is provided.

Subsequently, barrier() can never be defined as __memory_barrier() from
compiler.h since it already has a definition in place and if we trust
the comment in compiler-intel.h, ecc doesn't support gcc specific asm
statements.

I don't have an ecc at hand (unsure if that's still used in the field?)
and only found this by accident during code review, a revert of that
cleanup would be simplest option.

Fixes: 73679e50 ("compiler-intel.h: Remove duplicate definition")
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: NPranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Cc: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: mancha security <mancha1@zoho.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

In commit 0b053c95 ("lib: memzero_explicit: use barrier instead
of OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR"), we made memzero_explicit() more robust in
case LTO would decide to inline memzero_explicit() and eventually
find out it could be elimiated as dead store.

While using barrier() works well for the case of gcc, recent efforts
from LLVMLinux people suggest to use llvm as an alternative to gcc,
and there, Stephan found in a simple stand-alone user space example
that llvm could nevertheless optimize and thus elimitate the memset().
A similar issue has been observed in the referenced llvm bug report,
which is regarded as not-a-bug.

Based on some experiments, icc is a bit special on its own, while it
doesn't seem to eliminate the memset(), it could do so with an own
implementation, and then result in similar findings as with llvm.

The fix in this patch now works for all three compilers (also tested
with more aggressive optimization levels). Arguably, in the current
kernel tree it's more of a theoretical issue, but imho, it's better
to be pedantic about it.

It's clearly visible with gcc/llvm though, with the below code: if we
would have used barrier() only here, llvm would have omitted clearing,
not so with barrier_data() variant:

  static inline void memzero_explicit(void *s, size_t count)
  {
    memset(s, 0, count);
    barrier_data(s);
  }

  int main(void)
  {
    char buff[20];
    memzero_explicit(buff, sizeof(buff));
    return 0;
  }

  $ gcc -O2 test.c
  $ gdb a.out
  (gdb) disassemble main
  Dump of assembler code for function main:
   0x0000000000400400  <+0>: lea   -0x28(%rsp),%rax
   0x0000000000400405  <+5>: movq  $0x0,-0x28(%rsp)
   0x000000000040040e <+14>: movq  $0x0,-0x20(%rsp)
   0x0000000000400417 <+23>: movl  $0x0,-0x18(%rsp)
   0x000000000040041f <+31>: xor   %eax,%eax
   0x0000000000400421 <+33>: retq
  End of assembler dump.

  $ clang -O2 test.c
  $ gdb a.out
  (gdb) disassemble main
  Dump of assembler code for function main:
   0x00000000004004f0  <+0>: xorps  %xmm0,%xmm0
   0x00000000004004f3  <+3>: movaps %xmm0,-0x18(%rsp)
   0x00000000004004f8  <+8>: movl   $0x0,-0x8(%rsp)
   0x0000000000400500 <+16>: lea    -0x18(%rsp),%rax
   0x0000000000400505 <+21>: xor    %eax,%eax
   0x0000000000400507 <+23>: retq
  End of assembler dump.

As gcc, clang, but also icc defines __GNUC__, it's sufficient to define
this in compiler-gcc.h only to be picked up. For a fallback or otherwise
unsupported compiler, we define it as a barrier. Similarly, for ecc which
does not support gcc inline asm.

Reference: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15495Reported-by: NStephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
Tested-by: NStephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
Cc: mancha security <mancha1@zoho.com>
Cc: Mark Charlebois <charlebm@gmail.com>
Cc: Behan Webster <behanw@converseincode.com>
Signed-off-by: NHerbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

barrier is already defined as __memory_barrier in compiler.h
Remove this unnecessary redefinition.
Signed-off-by: NPranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAJhHMCAnYPy0%2BqD-1KBnJPLt3XgAjdR12j%2BySSnPgmZcpbE7HQ@mail.gmail.comSigned-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>

When compiling with icc, <linux/compiler-gcc.h> ends up included
because the icc environment defines __GNUC__.  Thus, we neither need
nor want to have this macro defined in both compiler-gcc.h and
compiler-intel.h, and the fact that they are inconsistent just makes
the compiler spew warnings.
Reported-by: NSunil K. Pandey <sunil.k.pandey@intel.com>
Cc: Kevin B. Smith <kevin.b.smith@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-0mbwou1zt7pafij09b897lg3@git.kernel.org
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>

Disabling compiler optimizations can be fragile, since a new
optimization could be added to -O0 or -Os that breaks the assumptions
the code is making.

Instead of disabling compiler optimizations, use a dummy inline assembly
(based on RELOC_HIDE) to block the problematic kinds of optimization,
while still allowing other optimizations to be applied to the code.

The dummy inline assembly is added after every OR, and has the
accumulator variable as its input and output. The compiler is forced to
assume that the dummy inline assembly could both depend on the
accumulator variable and change the accumulator variable, so it is
forced to compute the value correctly before the inline assembly, and
cannot assume anything about its value after the inline assembly.

This change should be enough to make crypto_memneq work correctly (with
data-independent timing) even if it is inlined at its call sites. That
can be done later in a followup patch.

Compile-tested on x86_64.
Signed-off-by: NCesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@cesarb.eti.br>
Acked-by: NDaniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NHerbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

Since GCC 4.4, there have been __builtin_bswap32() and __builtin_bswap16()
intrinsics. A __builtin_bswap16() came a little later (4.6 for PowerPC,
48 for other platforms).

By using these instead of the inline assembler that most architectures
have in their __arch_swabXX() macros, we let the compiler see what's
actually happening. The resulting code should be at least as good, and
much *better* in the cases where it can be combined with a nearby load
or store, using a load-and-byteswap or store-and-byteswap instruction
(e.g. lwbrx/stwbrx on PowerPC, movbe on Atom).

When GCC is sufficiently recent *and* the architecture opts in to using
the intrinsics by setting CONFIG_ARCH_USE_BUILTIN_BSWAP, they will be
used in preference to the __arch_swabXX() macros. An architecture which
does not set ARCH_USE_BUILTIN_BSWAP will continue to use its own
hand-crafted macros.
Signed-off-by: NDavid Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
Acked-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>

Replace worthless comments with actual preprocessor errors when including
the wrong versions of the compiler.h files.

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: make it work]
Signed-off-by: NRobert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

We can use a gcc extension to ensure that ARRAY_SIZE() is handed an array,
not a pointer.  This is especially important when code is changed from a
fixed array to a pointer.  I assume the Intel compiler doesn't support
__builtin_types_compatible_p.

[jdike@addtoit.com: uml: update UML definition of ARRAY_SIZE]
Signed-off-by: NRusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: NJeff Dike <jdike@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

Introduce a macro for suppressing gcc from generating a warning about a
probable uninitialized state of a variable.

Example:

-	spinlock_t *ptl;
+	spinlock_t *uninitialized_var(ptl);

Not a happy solution, but those warnings are obnoxious.

- Using the usual pointlessly-set-it-to-zero approach wastes several
  bytes of text.

- Using a macro means we can (hopefully) do something else if gcc changes
  cause the `x = x' hack to stop working

- Using a macro means that people who are worried about hiding true bugs
  can easily turn it off.
Signed-off-by: NBorislav Petkov <bbpetkov@yahoo.de>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.

Let it rip!