Re: [PATCH v6 13/29] arm64/build: Assert for unwanted sections

From: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
	Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
	Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	kernel-toolchains@vger.kernel.org,
	Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/29] arm64/build: Assert for unwanted sections
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:30:01 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201027203001.GA1833548@rani.riverdale.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOd=8YO3Vm0DuaWpDigMiwni+fVdrpagZtsROGziinjLvig@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 01:17:55PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:15 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 21:12, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 12:25 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Nick,
> > > >
> > > > CC Josh
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 6:49 PM Nick Desaulniers
> > > > <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:44 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > > > > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 6:39 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 17:01, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 2:29 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 1:29 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I.e. including the ".eh_frame" warning. I have tried bisecting that
> > > > > > > > > > warning (i.e. with be2881824ae9eb92 reverted), but that leads me to
> > > > > > > > > > commit b3e5d80d0c48c0cc ("arm64/build: Warn on orphan section
> > > > > > > > > > placement"), which is another red herring.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > kernel/bpf/core.o is the only file containing an eh_frame section,
> > > > > > > > > causing the warning.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I see .eh_frame, I think -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables is
> > > > > missing from someone's KBUILD_CFLAGS.
> > > > > But I don't see anything curious in kernel/bpf/Makefile, unless
> > > > > cc-disable-warning is somehow broken.
> > > >
> > > > I tracked it down to kernel/bpf/core.c:___bpf_prog_run() being tagged
> > > > with __no_fgcse aka __attribute__((optimize("-fno-gcse"))).
> > > >
> > > > Even if the function is trivially empty ("return 0;"), a ".eh_frame" section
> > > > is generated.  Removing the __no_fgcse tag fixes that.
> > >
> > > That's weird.  I feel pretty strongly that unless we're working around
> > > a well understood compiler bug with a comment that links to a
> > > submitted bug report, turning off rando compiler optimizations is a
> > > terrible hack for which one must proceed straight to jail; do not pass
> > > go; do not collect $200.  But maybe I'd feel differently for this case
> > > given the context of the change that added it.  (Ard mentions
> > > retpolines+orc+objtool; can someone share the relevant SHA if you have
> > > it handy so I don't have to go digging?)
> >
> > commit 3193c0836f203a91bef96d88c64cccf0be090d9c
> > Author: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> > Date:   Wed Jul 17 20:36:45 2019 -0500
> >
> >     bpf: Disable GCC -fgcse optimization for ___bpf_prog_run()
> >
> > has
> >
> > Fixes: e55a73251da3 ("bpf: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF code")
> >
> > and mentions objtool and CONFIG_RETPOLINE.
> >
> > >  (I feel the same about there
> > > being an empty asm(); statement in the definition of asm_volatile_goto
> > > for compiler-gcc.h).  Might be time to "fix the compiler."
> > >
> > > (It sounds like Arvind is both in agreement with my sentiment, and has
> > > the root cause).
> > >
> >
> > I agree that the __no_fgcse hack is terrible. Does Clang support the
> > following pragmas?
> >
> > #pragma GCC push_options
> > #pragma GCC optimize ("-fno-gcse")
> > #pragma GCC pop_options
> >
> > ?
> 
> Put it in godbolt.org.  Pretty sure it's `#pragma clang` though.
> `#pragma GCC` might be supported in clang or silently ignored, but
> IIRC pragmas were a bit of a compat nightmare.  I think Arnd wrote
> some macros to set pragmas based on toolchain.  (Uses _Pragma, for
> pragmas in macros, IIRC).
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> ~Nick Desaulniers

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Function-Specific-Option-Pragmas.html#Function-Specific-Option-Pragmas

#pragma GCC optimize is equivalent to the function attribute, so does
that actually help?

Btw, the bug mentioned in asm_volatile_goto seems like its been fixed in
4.9, so the hack could be dropped now?