linux-kernel - Re: Adding __popcountsi2 and _

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

Message-ID: <20250430131232.3caea352@pumpkin>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 13:12:32 +0100
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Adding __popcountsi2 and __popcountdi2

On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 17:33:42 -0700
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:

> Hi Linus,
> 
> Since I ran into problems at pull request time previously, I figured I
> would save myself some trouble and gauge your opinion up front. How
> palatable would the diff at the end of the thread be for the kernel?
> Clang would like to start emitting calls to __popcountsi2 and
> __popcountdi2 [1] for certain architectures (ARM and RISC-V), which
> would normally be a part of the compiler runtime but obviously the
> kernel does not link against it so it breaks the build. I figured added
> these may not be as bad as the wcslen() case because most architectures
> generally have an optimized popcount implementation and I am not sure
> compiler builtins are banned entirely from the kernel but I can
> understand if it is still contentious. It sounds like GCC has previously
> wanted to something similar [2] and it was somewhat brought up on the
> mailing lists [3] but never persued further it seems. Since this is a
> compiler runtime function, '-fno-builtin' would not work to avoid this.

Is this the compiler converting a call to __builtin_popcount() into
a function call - which the kernel can arrange to never do.

Or the compiler detecting a code pattern that looks like an open-coded
'popcount' function and deciding to convert it to a call to the builtin?
(which is a translation the kernel pretty much never wants for any
such code pattern - including memcpy()).

In either case the link failure is exactly what you want.

	David