linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/powerpc: Rework local

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:   Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:09:22 +1100
From:   "Alastair D'Silva" <alastair@....ibm.com>
To:     Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/powerpc: Rework local_paca to avoid LTO
 warnings

On Thu, 2019-03-14 at 10:54 +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> "Alastair D'Silva" <alastair@....ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > From: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@...ilva.org>
> > 
> > When building an LTO kernel, the existing code generates warnings:
> >     ./arch/powerpc/include/asm/paca.h:37:30: warning: register of
> >         ‘local_paca’ used for multiple global register variables
> >      register struct paca_struct *local_paca asm("r13");
> >                               ^
> >     ./arch/powerpc/include/asm/paca.h:37:30: note: conflicts with
> >         ‘local_paca’
> > 
> > This patch reworks local_paca into an inline getter & setter
> > function,
> > which addresses the warning.
> > 
> > Generated ASM from this patch is broadly similar (addresses have
> > changed and the compiler uses different GPRs in some places).
> 
> Ditto to Christophe's comment; I'd love to know how to build this so
> I
> can actually see the differences. Perhaps you could bundle up all the
> required changes and send it as a patch series with a cover letter
> explaining this?

The differences are visible in a normal build, but if you want to play
with LTO, see my comments to Christophe.

> 
> > +static inline struct paca_struct *get_paca_no_preempt_check(void)
> > +{
> > +	register struct paca_struct *paca asm("r13");
> > +	return paca;
> > +}
> 
> Isn't the convention to have the { on the same line as the function,
> or
> am I horrible mis-remembering things?
> 
You are :)

> Should these functions be __always_inline?
> 

Yes, they should, I'll add that to V3.

-- 
Alastair D'Silva
Open Source Developer
Linux Technology Centre, IBM Australia
mob: 0423 762 819