linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] byteorder: sanity check toolchain vs kernel endianess

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: <CACT4Y+YT52wGuARxe9RqUsMYGNZTwaBowWWUUawyqTBq4G1NDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 May 2019 13:50:19 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Nick Kossifidis <mick@....forth.gr>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] byteorder: sanity check toolchain vs kernel endianess

From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Date: Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:33 PM
To: Dmitry Vyukov, Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Nick Kossifidis, Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton,
linux-arch, Linux Kernel Mailing List, linuxppc-dev

> Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> writes:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > Date: Sat, May 11, 2019 at 2:51 AM
> > To: Dmitry Vyukov
> > Cc: Nick Kossifidis, Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton,
> > linux-arch, Linux Kernel Mailing List, linuxppc-dev
> >
> >> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:53 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I think it's good to have a sanity check in-place for consistency.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > This broke our cross-builds from x86. I am using:
> >> >
> >> > $ powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc --version
> >> > powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 7.2.0-7) 7.2.0
> >> >
> >> > and it says that it's little-endian somehow:
> >> >
> >> > $ powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc -dM -E - < /dev/null | grep BYTE_ORDER
> >> > #define __BYTE_ORDER__ __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
> >> >
> >> > Is it broke compiler? Or I always hold it wrong? Is there some
> >> > additional flag I need to add?
> >>
> >> It looks like a bug in the kernel Makefiles to me. powerpc32 is always
> >> big-endian,
> >> powerpc64 used to be big-endian but is now usually little-endian. There are
> >> often three separate toolchains that default to the respective user
> >> space targets
> >> (ppc32be, ppc64be, ppc64le), but generally you should be able to build
> >> any of the
> >> three kernel configurations with any of those compilers, and have the Makefile
> >> pass the correct -m32/-m64/-mbig-endian/-mlittle-endian command line options
> >> depending on the kernel configuration. It seems that this is not happening
> >> here. I have not checked why, but if this is the problem, it should be
> >> easy enough
> >> to figure out.
> >
> >
> > Thanks! This clears a lot.
> > This may be a bug in our magic as we try to build kernel files outside
> > of make with own flags (required to extract parts of kernel
> > interfaces).
> > So don't spend time looking for the Makefile bugs yet.
>
> OK :)
>
> We did have some bugs in the past (~1-2 y/ago) but AFAIK they are all
> fixed now. These days I build most of my kernels with a bi-endian 64-bit
> toolchain, and switching endian without running `make clean` also works.

For the record, yes, it turn out to be a problem in our code (a latent
bug). We actually used host (x86) gcc to build as-if ppc code that can
run on the host, so it defined neither LE no BE macros. It just
happened to work in the past :)
+Andrew