linux-kernel - [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 02/16] powerpc/4xx: Fix build errors from mfdcr()

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20210317005948.727250-2-sashal@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 20:59:33 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 02/16] powerpc/4xx: Fix build errors from mfdcr()

From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>

[ Upstream commit eead089311f4d935ab5d1d8fbb0c42ad44699ada ]

lkp reported a build error in fsp2.o:

  CC      arch/powerpc/platforms/44x/fsp2.o
  {standard input}:577: Error: unsupported relocation against base

Which comes from:

  pr_err("GESR0: 0x%08x\n", mfdcr(base + PLB4OPB_GESR0));

Where our mfdcr() macro is stringifying "base + PLB4OPB_GESR0", and
passing that to the assembler, which obviously doesn't work.

The mfdcr() macro already checks that the argument is constant using
__builtin_constant_p(), and if not calls the out-of-line version of
mfdcr(). But in this case GCC is smart enough to notice that "base +
PLB4OPB_GESR0" will be constant, even though it's not something we can
immediately stringify into a register number.

Segher pointed out that passing the register number to the inline asm
as a constant would be better, and in fact it fixes the build error,
presumably because it gives GCC a chance to resolve the value.

While we're at it, change mtdcr() similarly.

Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Suggested-by: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Acked-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210218123058.748882-1-mpe@ellerman.id.au
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/dcr-native.h | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/dcr-native.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/dcr-native.h
index 4a2beef74277..86fdda16bb73 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/dcr-native.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/dcr-native.h
@@ -65,8 +65,8 @@ static inline void mtdcrx(unsigned int reg, unsigned int val)
 #define mfdcr(rn)						\
 	({unsigned int rval;					\
 	if (__builtin_constant_p(rn) && rn < 1024)		\
-		asm volatile("mfdcr %0," __stringify(rn)	\
-		              : "=r" (rval));			\
+		asm volatile("mfdcr %0, %1" : "=r" (rval)	\
+			      : "n" (rn));			\
 	else if (likely(cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_INDEXED_DCR)))	\
 		rval = mfdcrx(rn);				\
 	else							\
@@ -76,8 +76,8 @@ static inline void mtdcrx(unsigned int reg, unsigned int val)
 #define mtdcr(rn, v)						\
 do {								\
 	if (__builtin_constant_p(rn) && rn < 1024)		\
-		asm volatile("mtdcr " __stringify(rn) ",%0"	\
-			      : : "r" (v)); 			\
+		asm volatile("mtdcr %0, %1"			\
+			      : : "n" (rn), "r" (v));		\
 	else if (likely(cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_INDEXED_DCR)))	\
 		mtdcrx(rn, v);					\
 	else							\
-- 
2.30.1