linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc/prom_init: add _

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: <CAK7LNARGpmcSVt9qsKDsPNb3KZkPc+QP9Aeh6Q-=o+J-K88Sgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Feb 2019 22:57:29 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/prom_init: add __init markers to all functions

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 7:33 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
>
> Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> writes:
>
> > It is fragile to rely on the compiler's optimization to avoid the
> > section mismatch. Some functions may not be necessarily inlined
> > when the compiler's inlining heuristic changes.
> >
> > Add __init markers consistently.
> >
> > As for prom_getprop() and prom_getproplen(), they are marked as
> > 'inline', so inlining is guaranteed because PowerPC never enables
> > CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING. However, it would be better to leave the
> > inlining decision to the compiler. I replaced 'inline' with __init.
>
> I'm going to drop that part because it breaks the build in some
> configurations (as reported by the build robot).


If you drop this part, my motivation for this patch is lost.

My motivation is to allow all architectures to enable
CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING.
(Currently, only x86 can enable it, but I see nothing arch-dependent
in this feature.)


When I tested it in 0-day bot, it reported
section mismatches from prom_getprop() and prom_getproplen().

So, I want to fix the section mismatches without
relying on 'inline'.


My suggestion is this:

static int __init __maybe_unused prom_getproplen(phandle node,
                                                 const char *pname)
{
        return call_prom("getproplen", 2, 1, node, ADDR(pname));
}


It is true you can use the side-effect of 'inline'
to hide the unused function warnings, but I prefer
as less inline markers as possible in *.c files.





> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c
> > index f33ff41..85b0719 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c
> > @@ -501,19 +501,19 @@ static int __init prom_next_node(phandle *nodep)
> >       }
> >  }
> >
> > -static inline int prom_getprop(phandle node, const char *pname,
> > +static int __init prom_getprop(phandle node, const char *pname,
> >                              void *value, size_t valuelen)
> >  {
> >       return call_prom("getprop", 4, 1, node, ADDR(pname),
> >                        (u32)(unsigned long) value, (u32) valuelen);
> >  }
> >
> > -static inline int prom_getproplen(phandle node, const char *pname)
> > +static int __init prom_getproplen(phandle node, const char *pname)
> >  {
> >       return call_prom("getproplen", 2, 1, node, ADDR(pname));
> >  }
> >
> > -static void add_string(char **str, const char *q)
> > +static void __init add_string(char **str, const char *q)
> >  {
> >       char *p = *str;
> >
> > @@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ static void add_string(char **str, const char *q)
> >       *str = p;
> >  }
> >
> > -static char *tohex(unsigned int x)
> > +static char __init *tohex(unsigned int x)
> >  {
> >       static const char digits[] __initconst = "0123456789abcdef";
> >       static char result[9] __prombss;
> > @@ -570,7 +570,7 @@ static int __init prom_setprop(phandle node, const char *nodename,
> >  #define islower(c)   ('a' <= (c) && (c) <= 'z')
> >  #define toupper(c)   (islower(c) ? ((c) - 'a' + 'A') : (c))
> >
> > -static unsigned long prom_strtoul(const char *cp, const char **endp)
> > +static unsigned long __init prom_strtoul(const char *cp, const char **endp)
> >  {
> >       unsigned long result = 0, base = 10, value;
> >
> > @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ static unsigned long prom_strtoul(const char *cp, const char **endp)
> >       return result;
> >  }
> >
> > -static unsigned long prom_memparse(const char *ptr, const char **retptr)
> > +static unsigned long __init prom_memparse(const char *ptr, const char **retptr)
> >  {
> >       unsigned long ret = prom_strtoul(ptr, retptr);
> >       int shift = 0;
> > @@ -2924,7 +2924,7 @@ static void __init fixup_device_tree_pasemi(void)
> >       prom_setprop(iob, name, "device_type", "isa", sizeof("isa"));
> >  }
> >  #else        /* !CONFIG_PPC_PASEMI_NEMO */
> > -static inline void fixup_device_tree_pasemi(void) { }
> > +static inline void __init fixup_device_tree_pasemi(void) { }
>
> I don't think we need __init for an empty static inline.

I prefer 'static __init' to 'static inline',
but I can drop this if you are uncomfortable with it.

My work will not be blocked by this.



> >  #endif
> >
> >  static void __init fixup_device_tree(void)
> > @@ -2986,15 +2986,15 @@ static void __init prom_check_initrd(unsigned long r3, unsigned long r4)
> >
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_RELOCATABLE
> > -static void reloc_toc(void)
> > +static void __init reloc_toc(void)
> >  {
> >  }
> >
> > -static void unreloc_toc(void)
> > +static void __init unreloc_toc(void)
> >  {
> >  }
>
> Those should be empty static inlines, I'll fix them up.

As I said above, I believe 'static inline' is mostly useful in headers,
but this is up to you.


BTW, I have v2 in hand already.
Do you need it if it is convenient for you?

I added __init to enter_prom() as well,
but you may not be comfortable with
replacing inline with __init.





> >  #else
> > -static void __reloc_toc(unsigned long offset, unsigned long nr_entries)
> > +static void __init __reloc_toc(unsigned long offset, unsigned long nr_entries)
> >  {
> >       unsigned long i;
> >       unsigned long *toc_entry;
> > @@ -3008,7 +3008,7 @@ static void __reloc_toc(unsigned long offset, unsigned long nr_entries)
> >       }
> >  }
> >
> > -static void reloc_toc(void)
> > +static void __init reloc_toc(void)
> >  {
> >       unsigned long offset = reloc_offset();
> >       unsigned long nr_entries =
> > @@ -3019,7 +3019,7 @@ static void reloc_toc(void)
> >       mb();
> >  }
> >
> > -static void unreloc_toc(void)
> > +static void __init unreloc_toc(void)
> >  {
> >       unsigned long offset = reloc_offset();
> >       unsigned long nr_entries =
>
>
> cheers



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada