linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: bitops: fix build regression

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: <CAMzpN2idWF2_4wtPebM2B2HVyksknr9hAqK8HJi_vjQ06bgu2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 02:18:09 -0400
From:   Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        "kernelci . org bot" <bot@...nelci.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
        Ilie Halip <ilie.halip@...il.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: bitops: fix build regression

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:47 PM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
>
> It turns out that if your config tickles __builtin_constant_p via
> differences in choices to inline or not, this now produces invalid
> assembly:
>
> $ cat foo.c
> long a(long b, long c) {
>   asm("orb\t%1, %0" : "+q"(c): "r"(b));
>   return c;
> }
> $ gcc foo.c
> foo.c: Assembler messages:
> foo.c:2: Error: `%rax' not allowed with `orb'
>
> The "q" constraint only has meanting on -m32 otherwise is treated as
> "r".
>
> This is easily reproducible via Clang+CONFIG_STAGING=y+CONFIG_VT6656=m,
> or Clang+allyesconfig.
>
> Keep the masking operation to appease sparse (`make C=1`), add back the
> cast in order to properly select the proper 8b register alias.
>
>  [Nick: reworded]
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
> Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/961
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200504193524.GA221287@google.com/
> Fixes: 1651e700664b4 ("x86: Fix bitops.h warning with a moved cast")
> Reported-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
> Reported-by: kernelci.org bot <bot@...nelci.org>
> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
> Suggested-by: Ilie Halip <ilie.halip@...il.com>
> Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> index b392571c1f1d..139122e5b25b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ arch_set_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
>         if (__builtin_constant_p(nr)) {
>                 asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "orb %1,%0"
>                         : CONST_MASK_ADDR(nr, addr)
> -                       : "iq" (CONST_MASK(nr) & 0xff)
> +                       : "iq" ((u8)(CONST_MASK(nr) & 0xff))

I think a better fix would be to make CONST_MASK() return a u8 value
rather than have to cast on every use.

Also I question the need for the "q" constraint.  It was added in
commit 437a0a54 as a workaround for GCC 3.4.4.  Now that the minimum
GCC version is 4.6, is this still necessary?

--
Brian Gerst