[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pm3zf2qi.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2023 14:36:53 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] compiler_types: Introduce the Clang
__preserve_most function attribute
* Marco Elver:
> Good idea. I had already created
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110899, and we need
> better spec to proceed for GCC anyway.
Thanks for the reference.
>> Doesn't this change impact the kernel module ABI?
>>
>> I would really expect a check here
>>
>> > +#if __has_attribute(__preserve_most__)
>> > +# define __preserve_most notrace __attribute__((__preserve_most__))
>> > +#else
>> > +# define __preserve_most
>> > +#endif
>>
>> that this is not a compilation for a module. Otherwise modules built
>> with a compiler with __preserve_most__ attribute support are
>> incompatible with kernels built with a compiler without that attribute.
>
> That's true, but is it a real problem? Isn't it known that trying to
> make kernel modules built for a kernel with a different config (incl.
> compiler) is not guaranteed to work? See IBT, CFI schemes, kernel
> sanitizers, etc?
>
> If we were to start trying to introduce some kind of minimal kernel to
> module ABI so that modules and kernels built with different toolchains
> keep working together, we'd need a mechanism to guarantee this minimal
> ABI or prohibit incompatible modules and kernels somehow. Is there a
> precedence for this somewhere?
I think the GCC vs Clang thing is expected to work today, isn't it?
Using the Clang-based BPF tools with a GCC-compiled kernel requires a
matching ABI.
The other things you listed result in fairly obvious breakage, sometimes
even module loading failures. Unconditional crashes are possible as
well. With __preserve_most__, the issues are much more subtle and may
only appear for some kernel/module compielr combinations and
optimization settings. The impact of incorrectly clobbered registers
tends to be like that.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists