linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v5] coresight: etm4x: avoid build failure with unrolled loops

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: <bd4a9bad394b478f9ee0d9c0981948f8@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jun 2022 09:40:40 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Suzuki K Poulose' <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
CC:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        Tao Zhang <quic_taozha@...cinc.com>,
        "Mike Leach" <mike.leach@...aro.org>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        "Alexander Shishkin" <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
        "coresight@...ts.linaro.org" <coresight@...ts.linaro.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "llvm@...ts.linux.dev" <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5] coresight: etm4x: avoid build failure with unrolled
 loops

...
> > Regardless of which compiler or compiler options determine whether a
> > loop can or can't be unrolled, which determines whether
> > __builtin_constant_p evaluates to true when passed an expression using a
> > loop induction variable, it is NEVER safe to allow the preprocessor to
> > construct inline asm like:
> >    asm volatile (".inst (0x160 + (i * 4))" : "=r"(__val));
> >                                   ^ expected constant expression

Can't you use (IIRC) an "=i" constraint with the C expression
so that the compiler evaluates the expression and passes the
correct constant value to the assembler?

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)