linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 31 (vboxguest)

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: <20181101142946.u5luuctqav6fec6k@mail.google.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Nov 2018 14:29:48 +0000
From:   Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 31 (vboxguest)

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 12:32:48PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:42 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/31/18, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > On 10/30/18 8:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Please do not add any v4.21/v5.1 code to your linux-next included trees
> > >> until after the merge window closes.
> > >>
> > >> Changes since 20181030:
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > on i386:
> > >
> > > ld: drivers/virt/vboxguest/vboxguest_core.o: in function
> > > `vbg_ioctl_hgcm_call':
> > > vboxguest_core.c:(.text+0x212b): undefined reference to `vbg_hgcm_call32'
> > >
> > >
> > > Full randconfig file is attached.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> >
> > I ran into the same thing, and lots of others like it; they all go back to
> > the -Og compiler option introduced in commit 94c7dfd01652 ("kernel
> > hacking: support building kernel with -Og optimization level").
> >
> >
> > I have patches for most of these, but I'd prefer if we could leave
> > that patch out of 4.20 for now, and have it in linux-next for merging
> > into the next merge window, to give us more time to fix up all the
> > regressions. This particular instance is fixed by the patch below.
> 
> 
> Hmm, I was considering the -Og support for the current MW,
> but it might be better to postpone it for 4.21-rc1...
> 
> 
> 
> > Other symptoms caused by the change are tons of 'section mismatch'
> > warnings for functions that are no longer automatically inlined, and
> > sprintf format string overflow warnings when gcc fails to propagate
> > an upper bound on an integer argument that is printed into a fixed
> > length string.
> >
> >      Arnd
> > ---
> > From 8172e650c6797b9cc64c6f7b1c9e5433156290cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 16:24:35 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] vbox: fix link error with 'gcc -Og'
> >
> > With the new CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_DEBUGGING option, we get a link
> > error in the vboxguest driver, when that fails to optimize out the
> > call to the compat handler:
> >
> > drivers/virt/vboxguest/vboxguest_core.o: In function `vbg_ioctl_hgcm_call':
> > vboxguest_core.c:(.text+0x1f6e): undefined reference to `vbg_hgcm_call32'
> >
> > Another compile-time check documents better what we want and avoids
> > the error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/virt/vboxguest/vboxguest_core.c
> > b/drivers/virt/vboxguest/vboxguest_core.c
> > index 3093655c7b92..1475ed5ffcde 100644
> > --- a/drivers/virt/vboxguest/vboxguest_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/virt/vboxguest/vboxguest_core.c
> > @@ -1312,7 +1312,7 @@ static int vbg_ioctl_hgcm_call(struct vbg_dev *gdev,
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> >         }
> >
> > -       if (f32bit)
> > +       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_COMPAT) && f32bit)
> >                 ret = vbg_hgcm_call32(gdev, client_id,
> >                                       call->function, call->timeout_ms,
> >                                       VBG_IOCTL_HGCM_CALL_PARMS32(call),
> 
> Right, but adding the CONFIG_COMPAT guard to both the caller and the callee
> looks a bit redundant...
> 
> 
> I think most cases causing this kind of problem
> rely on the assumption that 'static' functions are inlined.
> 
> We can force the compiler to do so
> by replacing 'static' with 'static __always_inline'
> 
Declaring it as normal 'inline' is enough. The inline functions are
still inlined by gcc. Thanks.

> 
> -- 
> Best Regards
> Masahiro Yamada

-- 
Thanks,
Changbin Du