lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] riscv: fix __user annotation for __copy_user()
From
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:00:08 PDT (-0700), luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 12:01:37PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 14:42:12 PDT (-0700), luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 01:00:08PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 17:13:12 PDT (-0700), luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > I tried it and ... the preprocessed asm is as expected:
>> > > > .globl __asm_copy_to_user ; .balign 4 ; __asm_copy_to_user:
>> > > > .globl __asm_copy_from_user ; .balign 4 ; __asm_copy_from_user:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > li t6, 0x00040000
>> > > > csrs sstatus, t6
>> > > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > But the nm -S returns different sizes for them:
>> > > > 0000000000000004 000000000000006c T __asm_copy_from_user
>> > > > 0000000000000002 000000000000006e T __asm_copy_to_user
>> > > >
>> > > > and the object code is:
>> > > > 0000000000000000 <__asm_copy_to_user-0x2>:
>> > > > 0: 0001 nop
>> > > >
>> > > > 0000000000000002 <__asm_copy_to_user>:
>> > > > 2: 0001 nop
>> > > >
>> > > > 0000000000000004 <__asm_copy_from_user>:
>> > > > 4: 00040fb7 lui t6,0x40
>> > > > 8: 100fa073 csrs sstatus,t6
>> > > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > Why these unnneded nops?
>> > > > Is this a known problem of my toolchain (I use a plain gcc 7.3 +
>> > > > binutils 2.29, both configured as riscv64-none-elf)?
>> > > >
>> > > > If I remove the two ENTRY() and use instead:
>> > > > .globl __asm_copy_to_user ; __asm_copy_to_user:
>> > > > .globl __asm_copy_from_user ; __asm_copy_from_user:
>> > > > (IOW, I drop the .balign) then I get the expected result.
>> > > > But well, this seems unrelated to the double ENTRY.
>> > > >
>> > > > I can't test it more for now because I've some link errors (which,
>> > > > I understand are probably solved in the riscv tree of binutils).
>> > > >
>> > > > I'll send you the patch anyway since, as far as I understand the changes
>> > > > specific to this copy_to/from_user is OK.
>> > >
>> > > I think it's probably a bug in binutils-2.29 that should be fixed by
>> > > 2.30 -- IIRC we had some bugs that looked like this and they got
>> > > fixed, though it might be just in master (so 2.31).
>> >
>> > I've tried binutils-2.30 and riscv-binutils-gdb, both still have
>> > the problem and master binutils-gdb doesn't compile for me.
>> > OTOH, everything is fine if I disabled CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C.
>>
>> OK, I'll try and figure out what's going on. We've had a handful of
>> headaches trying to get things like '.align 2; .align 2' to actually produce
>> no NOPs for the second alignment directive, which is surprisingly
>> complicated due to the aggressive linker relaxation we do.
>
> OK. I imagine indeed but note that no linker is involved here so,
> if the problem is still present, it must already be in the assembler.

Ah, OK -- in that case then it's just not a bug. In RISC-V land we handle
alignment as part of relaxation in the linker, so if you're looking at the
output of the assembler then you'll always see a bunch of NOPs for every
alignment directive. If you 'objdump -dr' you should be able to see the
relocations that get emitted, there should be a R_RISCV_ALIGN that points to
the run of NOPs.

>> > With this, the RISC-V arch should be sparse clean.
>> > I'll recheck after -rc1.
>>
>> This will be part of the PR that I tag today, so I anticipate it'll be in.
>
> Cool!
>
> -- Luc

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-12 19:12    [W:0.226 / U:0.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site