lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: futex: make futex_detect_cmpxchg more reliable
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:15 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> Passing registers containing zero as both the address (NULL pointer)
> and data into cmpxchg_futex_value_locked() leads clang to assign
> the same register for both inputs on ARM, which triggers a warning
> explaining that this instruction has unpredictable behavior on ARMv5.
>
> /tmp/futex-7e740e.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp/futex-7e740e.s:12713: Warning: source register same as write-back base
>
> This patch was suggested by Mikael Pettersson back in 2011 (!) with gcc-4.4,
> as Mikael wrote:
> "One way of fixing this is to make uaddr an input/output register, since
> "that prevents it from overlapping any other input or output."
>
> but then withdrawn as the warning was determined to be harmless, and it
> apparently never showed up again with later gcc versions.
>
> Now the same problem is back when compiling with clang, and we are trying
> to get clang to build the kernel without warnings, as gcc normally does.
>
> Cc: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@it.uu.se>
> Cc: Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@gmail.com>
> Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20009.45690.158286.161591@pilspetsen.it.uu.se/
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
> arch/arm/include/asm/futex.h | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/futex.h
> index 0a46676b4245..79790912974e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/futex.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/futex.h
> @@ -110,13 +110,13 @@ futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(u32 *uval, u32 __user *uaddr,
> preempt_disable();
> __ua_flags = uaccess_save_and_enable();
> __asm__ __volatile__("@futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic\n"
> - "1: " TUSER(ldr) " %1, [%4]\n"
> - " teq %1, %2\n"
> + "1: " TUSER(ldr) " %1, [%2]\n"
> + " teq %1, %3\n"
> " it eq @ explicit IT needed for the 2b label\n"
> - "2: " TUSER(streq) " %3, [%4]\n"
> + "2: " TUSER(streq) " %4, [%2]\n"
> __futex_atomic_ex_table("%5")
> - : "+r" (ret), "=&r" (val)
> - : "r" (oldval), "r" (newval), "r" (uaddr), "Ir" (-EFAULT)
> + : "+&r" (ret), "=&r" (val), "+&r" (uaddr)
> + : "r" (oldval), "r" (newval), "Ir" (-EFAULT)
> : "cc", "memory");
> uaccess_restore(__ua_flags);

Underspecification of constraints to extended inline assembly is a
common issue exposed by other compilers (and possibly but in-effect
infrequently compiler upgrades).
So the reordering of the constraints means the in the assembly (notes
for other reviewers):
%2 -> %3
%3 -> %4
%4 -> %2
Yep, looks good to me, thanks for finding this old patch and resending, Arnd!
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>

I think it would be good to further credit Mikael with reported by and
suggested by tags, but not sure which email address is preferred?

--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-07 20:40    [W:0.195 / U:1.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site