linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] compiler-gcc: require gcc 4.8 for powerpc __builtin

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]

Message-ID: <1462786493.5531.1.camel@ellerman.id.au>
Date:	Mon, 09 May 2016 19:34:53 +1000
From:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler-gcc: require gcc 4.8 for powerpc
 __builtin_bswap16()

On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 16:33 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:59:27 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 May 2016 09:22:25 -0500 Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > I've also seen no problems on powerpc with 4.4 and 4.8.  I suspect it's
> > > specific to gcc 4.6.  Stephen, can you confirm this patch fixes it?  
> > 
> > That will obviously fix the problem for us (since it will effectively
> > restore the code to what it was before the other commit for our gcc
> > 4.6.3 builds and we have not seen it in other builds).  I will add this
> > patch to linux-next today.
> > 
> > And since "byteswap: try to avoid __builtin_constant_p gcc bug" is not
> > in Linus' tree, hopefully we can have this fix applied soon.

> > > From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> > > Subject: [PATCH] compiler-gcc: require gcc 4.8 for powerpc __builtin_bswap16()
> > > 
> > > gcc support for __builtin_bswap16() was supposedly added for powerpc in
> > > gcc 4.6, and was then later added for other architectures in gcc 4.8.
> > > 
> > > However, Stephen Rothwell reported that attempting to use it on powerpc
> > > in gcc 4.6 fails with:
> > > 
> > >   lib/vsprintf.c:160:2: error: initializer element is not constant
> > >   lib/vsprintf.c:160:2: error: (near initialization for 'decpair[0]')
> > >   lib/vsprintf.c:160:2: error: initializer element is not constant
> > >   lib/vsprintf.c:160:2: error: (near initialization for 'decpair[1]')
> > >   lib/vsprintf.c:160:2: error: initializer element is not constant
> > >   lib/vsprintf.c:160:2: error: (near initialization for 'decpair[2]')
> > >   lib/vsprintf.c:160:2: error: initializer element is not constant
> > >   lib/vsprintf.c:160:2: error: (near initialization for 'decpair[3]')
> > >   lib/vsprintf.c:160:2: error: initializer element is not constant
> > > 
> > > I'm not entirely sure what those errors mean, but I don't see them on
> > > gcc 4.8.  So let's consider gcc 4.8 to be the official starting point
> > > for __builtin_bswap16().
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 7322dd755e7d ("byteswap: try to avoid __builtin_constant_p gcc bug")
> > > Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/compiler-gcc.h | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
> > > index eeae401..3d5202e 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
> > > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@
> > >  #define __HAVE_BUILTIN_BSWAP32__
> > >  #define __HAVE_BUILTIN_BSWAP64__
> > >  #endif
> > > -#if GCC_VERSION >= 40800 || (defined(__powerpc__) && GCC_VERSION >= 40600)
> > > +#if GCC_VERSION >= 40800
> > >  #define __HAVE_BUILTIN_BSWAP16__
> > >  #endif
> > >  #endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_USE_BUILTIN_BSWAP */
> > > -- 
> > > 2.4.11  
> 
> Tested-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> 
> Michael, do you want to pass the fix patch on, or will I submit it
> directly to Linus?

I'm happy for you to send it, I haven't actually hit the bug myself.

cheers