[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200911205526.65llro2gnh7zlsu4@ltop.local>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 22:55:26 +0200
From: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
To: Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] openrisc: Fix issue with get_user for 64-bit
values
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 08:39:40AM +0900, Stafford Horne wrote:
> A build failure was raised by kbuild with the following error.
>
> drivers/android/binder.c: Assembler messages:
> drivers/android/binder.c:3861: Error: unrecognized keyword/register name `l.lwz ?ap,4(r24)'
> drivers/android/binder.c:3866: Error: unrecognized keyword/register name `l.addi ?ap,r0,0'
>
> The issue is with 64-bit get_user() calls on openrisc. I traced this to
> a problem where in the internally in the get_user macros there is a cast
> to long __gu_val this causes GCC to think the get_user call is 32-bit.
> This binder code is really long and GCC allocates register r30, which
> triggers the issue. The 64-bit get_user asm tries to get the 64-bit pair
> register, which for r30 overflows the general register names and returns
> the dummy register ?ap.
>
> The fix here is to move the temporary variables into the asm macros. We
> use a 32-bit __gu_tmp for 32-bit and smaller macro and a 64-bit tmp in
> the 64-bit macro. The cast in the 64-bit macro has a trick of casting
> through __typeof__((x)-(x)) which avoids the below warning. This was
> barrowed from riscv.
>
> arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h:240:8: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size
>
> I tested this is a small unit test to check reading between 64-bit and
> 32-bit pointers to 64-bit and 32-bit values in all combinations. Also I
> ran make C=1 to confirm no new sparse warnings came up. It all looks
> clean to me.
It looks correct to me too now at C & assembly level.
Feel free to add my:
Reviewed-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
-- Luc
Powered by blists - more mailing lists