linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 and -next - __kfree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 10 May 2011 08:41:11 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 and -next - __kfree_rcu breaks
 third-party kernel code

On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 10:14:30AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 05/09/11 09:56, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 May 2011 09:17:57 PDT, Randy Dunlap said:
> > 
> >> I'd be happy to see a simple fix, but we don't generally support building
> >> external modules without using the kernel kbuild infrastructure AFAIK --
> >> and when I add a Makefile along with your kernconf.c file, it builds successfully
> >> on mmotm-2011-0506-1639.
> > 
> > And in fact the module *does* use the Makefile stuff for the actual build - it
> > was just the installer's "am I looking at a sane 2.6 tree" sanity check that
> > bombed. So I go looking for what special sauce the Makefile adds to make it
> > work, and....
> > 
> > OK, *now* I'm confused.  The magic sauce appears to be "-Os". Adding that makes
> > the compile work.  And for no obvious reason - there's something in there that
> > causes indigestion, but only if the optimizer isn't invoked.
> 
> You can disable that by disabling:
> CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y
> 
> > *WTF*?
> 
> I dunno either.

It appears that some compilers at some optimization levels aren't willing
to trace build-time constants through local parameters...  Could you please
try out the following patch?

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

rcu: avoid build error for third-party modules

The initial definition of __kfree_rcu() checked a static inline function
argument to see if it was a compile-time constant.  Apparently not all
compilers are willing to put up with this at all optimization levels.
Add a nasty comment and remove the warning, relying on the fact that
__kfree_rcu() is called only from kfree_rcu(), which always passes in
a compile-time constant.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 99f9aa7..58b13f1 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -814,13 +814,14 @@ static __always_inline bool __is_kfree_rcu_offset(unsigned long offset)
 	return offset < 4096;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Intended to be called only from the kfree_rcu() macro.
+ */
 static __always_inline
 void __kfree_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, unsigned long offset)
 {
 	typedef void (*rcu_callback)(struct rcu_head *);
 
-	BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(offset));
-
 	/* See the kfree_rcu() header comment. */
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_kfree_rcu_offset(offset));
 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/