[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANpmjNMoxZYZQNyZcnci_rC6d6X4WKpS+fX9goaBdGCJFPjUNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:07:20 +0200
From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.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
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 14:37, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> * 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?
I, personally, wouldn't bet on it. It very much depends on the kernel
config used.
> Using the Clang-based BPF tools with a GCC-compiled kernel requires a
> matching ABI.
BPF is a different story altogether, and falls more into the category
of user space to kernel ABI, which the kernel has strong guarantees
on.
> 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.
One way around this would be to make the availability of the attribute
a Kconfig variable. Then externally compiled kernel modules should do
the right thing, since they ought to use the right .config when being
built.
I can make that change for v3.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists