linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc/bug: Provide better flexibility to WARN_ON/__WARN

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <878s0nfhnb.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Fri, 27 Aug 2021 17:53:12 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc:     llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc/bug: Provide better flexibility to
 WARN_ON/__WARN_FLAGS() with asm goto

Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:54:17AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 01:21:39PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> writes:
>> > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:38:10PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> > >> Using asm goto in __WARN_FLAGS() and WARN_ON() allows more
>> > >> flexibility to GCC.
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > This patch as commit 1e688dd2a3d6 ("powerpc/bug: Provide better
>> > > flexibility to WARN_ON/__WARN_FLAGS() with asm goto") cause a WARN_ON in
>> > > klist_add_tail to trigger over and over on boot when compiling with
>> > > clang:
>> > >
...
>> > 
>> > This patch seems to fix it. Not sure if that's just papering over it though.
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h
>> > index 1ee0f22313ee..75fcb4370d96 100644
>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h
>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h
>> > @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ __label_warn_on:						\
>> >  								\
>> >  			WARN_ENTRY(PPC_TLNEI " %4, 0",		\
>> >  				   BUGFLAG_WARNING | BUGFLAG_TAINT(TAINT_WARN),	\
>> > -				   __label_warn_on, "r" (x));	\
>> > +				   __label_warn_on, "r" (!!(x))); \
>> >  			break;					\
>> >  __label_warn_on:						\
>> >  			__ret_warn_on = true;			\
>> > 
>> 
>> Thank you for the in-depth explanation and triage! I have gone ahead and
>> created a standalone reproducer that shows this based on the
>> preprocessed file and opened https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51634
>> so the LLVM developers can take a look.
>
> Based on Eli Friedman's comment in the bug, would something like this
> work and not regress GCC? I noticed that the BUG_ON macro does a cast as
> well. Nick pointed out to me privately that we have run into what seems
> like a similar issue before in commit 6c58f25e6938 ("riscv/atomic: Fix
> sign extension for RV64I").

Yes, I read that comment this morning, and then landed at the same fix
via digging through the history of our bug code.

We in fact fixed a similar bug 16 years ago :}

32818c2eb6b8 ("[PATCH] ppc64: Fix issue with gcc 4.0 compiled kernels")

Which is when we first started adding the cast to long.


> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h
> index 1ee0f22313ee..35022667f57d 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h
> @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ __label_warn_on:                                            \
>                                                                 \
>                         WARN_ENTRY(PPC_TLNEI " %4, 0",          \
>                                    BUGFLAG_WARNING | BUGFLAG_TAINT(TAINT_WARN), \
> -                                  __label_warn_on, "r" (x));   \
> +                                  __label_warn_on, "r" ((__force long)(x)));   \
>                         break;                                  \
>  __label_warn_on:                                               \
>                         __ret_warn_on = true;                   \


Yeah that fixes the clang build for me.

For GCC it seems to generate the same code in the simple cases:

void test_warn_on_ulong(unsigned long b)
{
        WARN_ON(b);
}

void test_warn_on_int(int b)
{
        WARN_ON(b);
}

I get:

0000000000000020 <.test_warn_on_ulong>:
  20:   0b 03 00 00     tdnei   r3,0
  24:   4e 80 00 20     blr
  28:   60 00 00 00     nop
  2c:   60 00 00 00     nop

0000000000000030 <.test_warn_on_int>:
  30:   0b 03 00 00     tdnei   r3,0
  34:   4e 80 00 20     blr

Both before and after the change. So that's good.

For:

void test_warn_on_int_addition(int b)
{
        WARN_ON(b+1);
}

Before I get:

0000000000000040 <.test_warn_on_int_addition>:
  40:   38 63 00 01     addi    r3,r3,1
  44:   0b 03 00 00     tdnei   r3,0
  48:   4e 80 00 20     blr

vs after:

0000000000000040 <.test_warn_on_int_addition>:
  40:   38 63 00 01     addi    r3,r3,1
  44:   7c 63 07 b4     extsw   r3,r3
  48:   0b 03 00 00     tdnei   r3,0
  4c:   4e 80 00 20     blr


So there's an extra sign extension we don't need, but I guess we can
probably live with that.

cheers