| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <166737072744.4614.10758297029461955484@jlahtine-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 08:32:07 +0200
From: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@...el.com>,
Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@...el.com>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler
Quoting Jani Nikula (2022-10-28 11:46:21)
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@...el.com> wrote:
> > Resend, because some content was accidentally omitted from the previous
> > reply.
> > Please ignore the previous email.
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I should have written the original commit message more accurately, but
> > it seems that it was written inaccurately.
> >
> > If the FIELD_PREP macro is expanded, the following macros are used.
> >
> > #define FIELD_PREP(_mask, _val) \
> > ({ \
> > __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
> > ((typeof(_mask))(_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
> > })
> >
> >
> > #define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx) \
> > ({ \
> > BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask), \
> > _pfx "mask is not constant"); \
> > BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) == 0, _pfx "mask is zero"); \
> > BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ? \
> > ~((_mask) >> __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_val) : 0, \
> > _pfx "value too large for the field"); \
> > BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
> > __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull), \
> > _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
> > __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2((_mask) + \
> > (1ULL << __bf_shf(_mask))); \
> > })
> >
> > Among them, a build error is generated by the lower part of the
> > __BF_FIELD_CHECK() macro.
> >
> > BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
> > __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull), \
> > _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
> >
> >
> > Here, if you apply an argument to this macro, it will look like the
> > following.
> >
> > __bf_cast_unsigned(field_msk, field_msk) > __bf_cast_unsigned(0ULL, ~0ull)
> >
> > The result is always false because an unsigned int value of type
> > field_msk is not always greater than the maximum value of unsigned long
> > long .
> > So, a build error occurs due to the following part of the clang compiler
> > option.
> >
> > [-Werror,-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
> >
> > You can simply override this warning in Clang by adding the build option
> > below, but this seems like a bad attempt
> >
> > i915/Makefile
> > CFLAGS_i915_hwmon.o += -Wno-tautological-constant-out-of-range-compare
> >
> > The easiest way to solve this is to use a constant value, not a
> > variable, as an argument to FIELD_PREP.
> >
> > And since the REG_FIELD_PREP() macro suggested by Jani requires a const
> > expression as the first argument, it cannot be changed with this macro
> > alone in the existing code, it must be changed to input a constant value
> > as shown below.
>
> We've added REG_FIELD_PREP() precisely to avoid the problems with the
> types and ranges, as we want it to operate on u32. It also uses
> __is_constexpr() to avoid dependencies on compiler implementation and
> optimizations.
>
> Please use REG_FIELD_PREP() and a constant value. Maybe rethink the
> interface if needed.
Ashutosh and GG, can we get a fix for this merged ASAP. It's currently
blocking the drm-intel-gt-next pull request.
Regards, Joonas
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > index 08c921421a5f..abb3a194c548 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ hwm_field_read_and_scale(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat,
> > i915_reg_t rgadr,
> >
> > static void
> > hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
> > - const u32 field_msk, int nshift,
> > + int nshift,
> > unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
> > {
> > u32 nval;
> > @@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat,
> > i915_reg_t rgadr,
> > /* Computation in 64-bits to avoid overflow. Round to nearest. */
> > nval = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)lval << nshift, scale_factor);
> >
> > - bits_to_clear = field_msk;
> > - bits_to_set = REG_FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
> > + bits_to_clear = PKG_PWR_LIM_1;
> > + bits_to_set = REG_FIELD_PREP(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, nval);
> >
> > hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
> > bits_to_clear, bits_to_set);
> > @@ -406,7 +406,6 @@ hwm_power_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32 attr,
> > int chan, long val)
> > case hwmon_power_max:
> > hwm_field_scale_and_write(ddat,
> > hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit,
> > - PKG_PWR_LIM_1,
> > hwmon->scl_shift_power,
> > SF_POWER, val);
> > return 0;
> >
> >
> >
> > In addition, if there is no build problem regardless of the size of the
> > type as the first argument in FIELD_PREP, it is possible through the
> > following modification.
> > (Since this modification modifies include/linux/bitfield.h , I will send
> > it as a separate patch.
> > )
> >
> > However, it seems that we need to have Jani's confirm whether it is okay
> > to use FIELD_PREP() instead of REG_FIELD_PREP() which is forced to u32
> > return type in i915.
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> > index c9be1657f03d..6e96799b6f38 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> > @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
> >
> > #include <linux/build_bug.h>
> > #include <asm/byteorder.h>
> > -
> > +#include <linux/overflow.h>
> > /*
> > * Bitfield access macros
> > *
> > @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
> > ~((_mask) >> __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_val)
> > : 0, \
> > _pfx "value too large for the field"); \
> > BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
> > - __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull), \
> > + __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg,
> > type_max(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_reg))), \
> > _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
> > __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2((_mask) + \
> > (1ULL << __bf_shf(_mask))); \
> > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
> > */
> > #define FIELD_MAX(_mask) \
> > ({ \
> > - __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, 0ULL, "FIELD_MAX: "); \
> > + __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask,
> > type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_mask)),
> > type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_mask)), "FIELD_MAX: "); \
> > (typeof(_mask))((_mask) >> __bf_shf(_mask)); \
> > })
> >
> > @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
> > */
> > #define FIELD_FIT(_mask, _val) \
> > ({ \
> > - __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, 0ULL, "FIELD_FIT: "); \
> > + __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask,
> > type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_mask)),
> > type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_val)), "FIELD_FIT: "); \
> > !((((typeof(_mask))_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & ~(_mask)); \
> > })
> >
> > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@
> > */
> > #define FIELD_PREP(_mask, _val)
> > \
> > ({ \
> > - __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
> > + __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask,
> > type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_mask)), _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
> > ((typeof(_mask))(_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
> > })
> >
> > @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
> > */
> > #define FIELD_GET(_mask, _reg) \
> > ({ \
> > - __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, 0U, "FIELD_GET: "); \
> > + __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg,
> > type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_reg)), "FIELD_GET: "); \
> > (typeof(_mask))(((_reg) & (_mask)) >> __bf_shf(_mask)); \
> > })
> >
> >
> > Br,
> >
> > G.G.
> >
> > On 10/27/22 9:32 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 10:16:47 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Nick,
> >>
> >>> Thanks, I can repro now.
> >>>
> >>> I haven't detangled the macro soup, but I noticed:
> >>>
> >>> 1. FIELD_PREP is defined in include/linux/bitfield.h which has the
> >>> following comment:
> >>> 18 * Mask must be a compilation time constant.
> >>
> >> I had comments about this here:
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/intel-gfx/87ilk7pwrw.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com/
> >>
> >> The relevant part being:
> >>
> >> ---- {quote} ----
> >>>>> ./include/linux/bitfield.h:71:53: note: expanded from macro '__BF_FIELD_CHECK'
> >>>>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
> >>
> >> So clang seems to break here at this line in __BF_FIELD_CHECK (note ~0ull
> >> also occurs here):
> >>
> >> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
> >> __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull), \
> >> _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
> >>
> >> So it goes through previous checks including the "mask is not constant"
> >> check. As Nick Desaulniers mentions "__builtin_constant_p is evaluated
> >> after most optimizations have run" so by that time both compilers (gcc and
> >> clang) have figured out that even though _mask is coming in as function
> >> argument it is really the constant below:
> >>
> >> #define PKG_PWR_LIM_1 REG_GENMASK(14, 0)
> >>
> >> But it is not clear why clang chokes on this "type of reg too small for
> >> mask" check (and gcc doesn't) since everything is u32.
> >> ---- {end quote} ----
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 2. hwm_field_scale_and_write only has one callsite.
> >>>
> >>> The following patch works:
> >>
> >> If we need to fix it at our end yes we can come up with one of these
> >> patches. But we were hoping someone from clang/llvm can comment about the
> >> "type of reg too small for mask" stuff. If this is something which needs to
> >> be fixed in clang/llvm we probably don't want to hide the issue.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> ```
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> >>> index 9e9781493025..6ac29d90b92a 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> >>> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ hwm_field_read_and_scale(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat,
> >>> i915_reg_t rgadr,
> >>>
> >>> static void
> >>> hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
> >>> - u32 field_msk, int nshift,
> >>> + int nshift,
> >>> unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
> >>> {
> >>> u32 nval;
> >>> @@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata
> >>> *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
> >>> /* Computation in 64-bits to avoid overflow. Round to nearest. */
> >>> nval = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)lval << nshift, scale_factor);
> >>>
> >>> - bits_to_clear = field_msk;
> >>> - bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
> >>> + bits_to_clear = PKG_PWR_LIM_1;
> >>> + bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, nval);
> >>>
> >>> hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
> >>> bits_to_clear, bits_to_set);
> >>> @@ -406,7 +406,6 @@ hwm_power_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32
> >>> attr, int chan, long val)
> >>> case hwmon_power_max:
> >>> hwm_field_scale_and_write(ddat,
> >>> hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit,
> >>> - PKG_PWR_LIM_1,
> >>> hwmon->scl_shift_power,
> >>> SF_POWER, val);
> >>> return 0;
> >>> ```
> >>> Though I'm not sure if you're planning to add further callsites of
> >>> hwm_field_scale_and_write with different field_masks?
> >>
> >> I have reasons for keeping it this way, it's there in the link above if you
> >> are interested.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Alternatively, (without the above diff),
> >>>
> >>> ```
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> >>> index c9be1657f03d..6f40f12bcf89 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> >>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> >>> #define _LINUX_BITFIELD_H
> >>>
> >>> #include <linux/build_bug.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/const.h>
> >>> #include <asm/byteorder.h>
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> @@ -62,7 +63,7 @@
> >>>
> >>> #define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx) \
> >>> ({ \
> >>> - BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask), \
> >>> + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__is_constexpr(_mask), \
> >>> _pfx "mask is not constant"); \
> >>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) == 0, _pfx "mask is zero"); \
> >>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ? \
> >>> ```
> >>> will produce:
> >>> error: call to __compiletime_assert_407 declared with 'error'
> >>> attribute: FIELD_PREP: mask is not constant
> >>>
> >>> I haven't tested if that change is also feasible (on top of fixing
> >>> this specific instance), but I think it might help avoid more of these
> >>> subtleties wrt. __builtin_constant_p that depende heavily on compiler,
> >>> compiler version, optimization level.
> >>
> >> Not disagreeing, can do something here if needed.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >> --
> >> Ashutosh
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists