* Problems with arm64 compat vdso
@ 2019-09-20 14:27 Will Deacon
2019-09-20 16:33 ` Vincenzo Frascino
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 127+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2019-09-20 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: vincenzo.frascino
Cc: linux-kernel, linux-kernel, tglx, linux, ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas
Hi Vincenzo,
I've been running into a few issues with the COMPAT vDSO. Please could
you have a look?
If I do the following:
$ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig
[...]
$ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig
[set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"]
$ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu-
Then I see the following warning:
arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built
even though the compat vDSO *has* been built:
$ file arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so: ELF 32-bit LSB pie executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=c67f6c786f2d2d6f86c71f708595594aa25247f6, stripped
However, I also get some warnings because arm64 headers are being included
in the compat vDSO build:
In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0,
from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38,
from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5,
from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78,
from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51,
from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36,
from ./include/linux/time.h:6,
from /usr/local/google/home/willdeacon/work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7,
from <command-line>:0:
./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’:
./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast]
u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff);
^
In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0,
from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34,
from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118,
from ./include/linux/elf.h:5,
from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62,
from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11:
./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’:
./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast]
u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff);
^
Worse, if your compat binutils isn't up-to-date, you'll actually run into
a build failure:
/tmp/ccFCrjUg.s:80: Error: invalid barrier type -- `dmb ishld'
/tmp/ccFCrjUg.s:124: Error: invalid barrier type -- `dmb ishld'
There also appears to be a problem getting the toolchain prefix from Kconfig.
If, for example, I do:
$ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig
[...]
$ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig
[set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="vincenzo"]
$ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu-
arch/arm64/Makefile:64: *** vincenzogcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT. Stop.
$ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig
[set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"]
$ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu-
arch/arm64/Makefile:64: *** vincenzogcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT. Stop.
$ grep CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO .config
CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"
which is irritating, because it seems to force a 'mrproper' if you don't
get the prefix right first time.
Cheers,
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread* Re: Problems with arm64 compat vdso 2019-09-20 14:27 Problems with arm64 compat vdso Will Deacon @ 2019-09-20 16:33 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-23 16:41 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-20 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: linux-kernel, linux-kernel, tglx, linux, ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3814 bytes --] Hi Will, thank you for reporting this. On 20/09/2019 15:27, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Vincenzo, > > I've been running into a few issues with the COMPAT vDSO. Please could > you have a look? > I will be at Linux Recipes next week. I will look at this with priority when I come back. > If I do the following: > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig > [...] > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig > [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > > Then I see the following warning: > > arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built > > even though the compat vDSO *has* been built: > > $ file arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so: ELF 32-bit LSB pie executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=c67f6c786f2d2d6f86c71f708595594aa25247f6, stripped > > However, I also get some warnings because arm64 headers are being included > in the compat vDSO build: > > In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, > from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, > from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, > from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, > from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, > from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, > from ./include/linux/time.h:6, > from /usr/local/google/home/willdeacon/work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, > from <command-line>:0: > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > ^ > In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, > from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, > from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, > from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, > from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, > from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > ^ > Worse, if your compat binutils isn't up-to-date, you'll actually run into > a build failure: > > /tmp/ccFCrjUg.s:80: Error: invalid barrier type -- `dmb ishld' > /tmp/ccFCrjUg.s:124: Error: invalid barrier type -- `dmb ishld' > > There also appears to be a problem getting the toolchain prefix from Kconfig. > If, for example, I do: > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig > [...] > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig > [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="vincenzo"] > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > arch/arm64/Makefile:64: *** vincenzogcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT. Stop. > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig > [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > arch/arm64/Makefile:64: *** vincenzogcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT. Stop. > $ grep CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO .config > CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-" > > which is irritating, because it seems to force a 'mrproper' if you don't > get the prefix right first time. > > Cheers, > > Will > -- Regards, Vincenzo [-- Attachment #2: pEpkey.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 14291 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: Problems with arm64 compat vdso 2019-09-20 16:33 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-23 16:41 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2019-09-24 12:11 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-25 15:58 ` Ard Biesheuvel 0 siblings, 2 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2019-09-23 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: Will Deacon, linux-kernel, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Thomas Gleixner, Russell King, Catalin Marinas On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 18:33, Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Will, > > thank you for reporting this. > > On 20/09/2019 15:27, Will Deacon wrote: > > Hi Vincenzo, > > > > I've been running into a few issues with the COMPAT vDSO. Please could > > you have a look? > > > > I will be at Linux Recipes next week. I will look at this with priority when I > come back. > Hi all, I noticed another issue: I build out of tree, and the VDSO gets rebuilt every time I build the kernel, even if I haven't made any changes to the source tree at all. Could you please look into that as well? (once you get around to it) Thanks, Ard. > > If I do the following: > > > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig > > [...] > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig > > [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > > > > Then I see the following warning: > > > > arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built > > > > even though the compat vDSO *has* been built: > > > > $ file arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so > > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so: ELF 32-bit LSB pie executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=c67f6c786f2d2d6f86c71f708595594aa25247f6, stripped > > > > However, I also get some warnings because arm64 headers are being included > > in the compat vDSO build: > > > > In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, > > from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, > > from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, > > from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, > > from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, > > from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, > > from ./include/linux/time.h:6, > > from /usr/local/google/home/willdeacon/work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, > > from <command-line>:0: > > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: > > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] > > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > > ^ > > In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, > > from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, > > from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, > > from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, > > from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, > > from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: > > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: > > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] > > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > > ^ > > Worse, if your compat binutils isn't up-to-date, you'll actually run into > > a build failure: > > > > /tmp/ccFCrjUg.s:80: Error: invalid barrier type -- `dmb ishld' > > /tmp/ccFCrjUg.s:124: Error: invalid barrier type -- `dmb ishld' > > > > There also appears to be a problem getting the toolchain prefix from Kconfig. > > If, for example, I do: > > > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig > > [...] > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig > > [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="vincenzo"] > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > > arch/arm64/Makefile:64: *** vincenzogcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT. Stop. > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig > > [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > > arch/arm64/Makefile:64: *** vincenzogcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT. Stop. > > $ grep CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO .config > > CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-" > > > > which is irritating, because it seems to force a 'mrproper' if you don't > > get the prefix right first time. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Will > > > > -- > Regards, > Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: Problems with arm64 compat vdso 2019-09-23 16:41 ` Ard Biesheuvel @ 2019-09-24 12:11 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-24 18:06 ` Nick Desaulniers 2019-09-25 15:58 ` Ard Biesheuvel 1 sibling, 1 reply; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-24 12:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Will Deacon, linux-kernel, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Thomas Gleixner, Russell King, Catalin Marinas Hi Ard, On 9/23/19 5:41 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 18:33, Vincenzo Frascino > <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Will, >> >> thank you for reporting this. >> >> On 20/09/2019 15:27, Will Deacon wrote: >>> Hi Vincenzo, >>> >>> I've been running into a few issues with the COMPAT vDSO. Please could >>> you have a look? >>> >> >> I will be at Linux Recipes next week. I will look at this with priority when I >> come back. >> > > Hi all, > > I noticed another issue: I build out of tree, and the VDSO gets > rebuilt every time I build the kernel, even if I haven't made any > changes to the source tree at all. > > Could you please look into that as well? (once you get around to it) > I am happy to have a look at this once back from Kernel Recipes next week. In the meantime may I ask for some more details? Could be useful to have a set of commands and a log that shows the problem, in this way I will be sure to be looking at the same issue. > Thanks, > Ard. > > >>> If I do the following: >>> >>> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig >>> [...] >>> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig >>> [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] >>> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- >>> >>> Then I see the following warning: >>> >>> arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built >>> >>> even though the compat vDSO *has* been built: >>> >>> $ file arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so >>> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so: ELF 32-bit LSB pie executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=c67f6c786f2d2d6f86c71f708595594aa25247f6, stripped >>> >>> However, I also get some warnings because arm64 headers are being included >>> in the compat vDSO build: >>> >>> In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, >>> from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, >>> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, >>> from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, >>> from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, >>> from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, >>> from ./include/linux/time.h:6, >>> from /usr/local/google/home/willdeacon/work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, >>> from <command-line>:0: >>> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: >>> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] >>> u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); >>> ^ >>> In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, >>> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, >>> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, >>> from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, >>> from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, >>> from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: >>> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: >>> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] >>> u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); >>> ^ >>> Worse, if your compat binutils isn't up-to-date, you'll actually run into >>> a build failure: >>> >>> /tmp/ccFCrjUg.s:80: Error: invalid barrier type -- `dmb ishld' >>> /tmp/ccFCrjUg.s:124: Error: invalid barrier type -- `dmb ishld' >>> >>> There also appears to be a problem getting the toolchain prefix from Kconfig. >>> If, for example, I do: >>> >>> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig >>> [...] >>> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig >>> [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="vincenzo"] >>> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- >>> arch/arm64/Makefile:64: *** vincenzogcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT. Stop. >>> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig >>> [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] >>> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- >>> arch/arm64/Makefile:64: *** vincenzogcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT. Stop. >>> $ grep CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO .config >>> CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-" >>> >>> which is irritating, because it seems to force a 'mrproper' if you don't >>> get the prefix right first time. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Will >>> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Vincenzo -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: Problems with arm64 compat vdso 2019-09-24 12:11 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-24 18:06 ` Nick Desaulniers 2019-09-24 20:42 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 1 reply; 127+ messages in thread From: Nick Desaulniers @ 2019-09-24 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: vincenzo.frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, linux-kernel, linux-kernel, linux, tglx, will, natechancellor Hi Vincenzo, We also are having issues building the cross vDSO with Clang: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/595 It seems that `LINUXINCLUDE` in arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile is including arm64 headers in the arm part of the vdso32 build, which causes Clang to error on the arm64 inline asm constraints being used in arm64. I think if the issue Will described is fixed, it will be simpler for us to fix the rest to get it to build w/ Clang. https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/595#issuecomment-509874891 is the basis of such a patch. Clang ships with all backends on by default, and uses a `-target <triple>` to cross compile; so the idea of passing two cross compiler binaries for a compat vDSO build doesn't really apply to Clang. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: Problems with arm64 compat vdso 2019-09-24 18:06 ` Nick Desaulniers @ 2019-09-24 20:42 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-24 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, linux-kernel, linux-kernel, linux, tglx, will, natechancellor Hi Nick, thanks for reporting this. On 9/24/19 7:06 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > Hi Vincenzo, > We also are having issues building the cross vDSO with Clang: > https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/595 > The initial implementation of vdso32 does not have support for Clang. I was planning to add it with a second patch set but it seems requiring more work. > It seems that `LINUXINCLUDE` in arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile is including > arm64 headers in the arm part of the vdso32 build, which causes Clang to error > on the arm64 inline asm constraints being used in arm64. > > I think if the issue Will described is fixed, it will be simpler for us to fix > the rest to get it to build w/ Clang. > > https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/595#issuecomment-509874891 > is the basis of such a patch. > I agree with you this issue needs to be solved once and for all, but I feel that the solution is not straight forward. Next week I will post a fix to the problem Will raised and then will start investigating a more long term solution. > Clang ships with all backends on by default, and uses a `-target <triple>` to > cross compile; so the idea of passing two cross compiler binaries for a compat > vDSO build doesn't really apply to Clang. > My idea was to derivate the triple for clang from the compat cross compiler name removing the final dash. I have in my Makefile something on the lines: CLANG_TRIPLE ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%-"=%) ... COMPATCC := $(CC) --target=$(notdir $CLANG_TRIPLE) -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: Problems with arm64 compat vdso 2019-09-23 16:41 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2019-09-24 12:11 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-25 15:58 ` Ard Biesheuvel 1 sibling, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2019-09-25 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: Will Deacon, linux-kernel, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Thomas Gleixner, Russell King, Catalin Marinas On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 18:41, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 18:33, Vincenzo Frascino > <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Will, > > > > thank you for reporting this. > > > > On 20/09/2019 15:27, Will Deacon wrote: > > > Hi Vincenzo, > > > > > > I've been running into a few issues with the COMPAT vDSO. Please could > > > you have a look? > > > > > > > I will be at Linux Recipes next week. I will look at this with priority when I > > come back. > > > > Hi all, > > I noticed another issue: I build out of tree, and the VDSO gets > rebuilt every time I build the kernel, even if I haven't made any > changes to the source tree at all. > > Could you please look into that as well? (once you get around to it) > I haven't managed to reproduce this on a fresh checkout, so it looks like this is a transient thing. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 0/4] arm64: vdso32: Address various issues 2019-09-20 14:27 Problems with arm64 compat vdso Will Deacon @ 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx Hi Will, this patch series is meant to address the various compilation issues you reported about arm64 vdso32. Please let me know if there is still something missing. Thanks, Vincenzo Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Vincenzo Frascino (4): arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- arch/arm64/Makefile | 15 ++------------- arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 5 +++++ arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S | 0 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 5 ++++- 6 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 0/4] arm64: vdso32: Address various issues @ 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will Hi Will, this patch series is meant to address the various compilation issues you reported about arm64 vdso32. Please let me know if there is still something missing. Thanks, Vincenzo Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Vincenzo Frascino (4): arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- arch/arm64/Makefile | 15 ++------------- arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 5 +++++ arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S | 0 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 5 ++++- 6 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx As reported by Will Deacon the .config file and the generated include/config/auto.conf can end up out of sync after a set of commands since CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO is not updated correctly. The sequence can be reproduced as follows: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig [...] $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- Which results in: arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built even though the compat vDSO has been built: $ file arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so: ELF 32-bit LSB pie executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=c67f6c786f2d2d6f86c71f708595594aa25247f6, stripped A similar case that involves changing the configuration parameter multiple times can be reconducted to the same family of problems. The reason behind it comes from the fact that the master Makefile includes that architecture Makefile twice, once before the syncconfig and one after. Since the synchronization of the files happens only upon syncconfig, the architecture Makefile included before this event does not see the change in configuration. As a consequence of this it is not possible to handle the cross compiler definitions inside the architecture Makefile. Address the problem removing CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO and moving the detection of the correct compiler into Kconfig via COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC. As a consequence of this it is not possible anymore to set the compat cross compiler from menuconfig but it requires to be exported via command line. E.g.: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=arm-linux-gnueabihf Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- arch/arm64/Makefile | 15 ++------------- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index 37c610963eee..afe8c948b493 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC) select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND select HAVE_PCI @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS default 0xffffffffffffffff +config COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) + source "arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms" menu "Kernel Features" diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) endif ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) - - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) - else - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 - endif + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 endif KBUILD_CFLAGS += -mgeneral-regs-only $(lseinstr) $(brokengasinst) \ -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will As reported by Will Deacon the .config file and the generated include/config/auto.conf can end up out of sync after a set of commands since CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO is not updated correctly. The sequence can be reproduced as follows: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig [...] $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- Which results in: arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built even though the compat vDSO has been built: $ file arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so: ELF 32-bit LSB pie executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=c67f6c786f2d2d6f86c71f708595594aa25247f6, stripped A similar case that involves changing the configuration parameter multiple times can be reconducted to the same family of problems. The reason behind it comes from the fact that the master Makefile includes that architecture Makefile twice, once before the syncconfig and one after. Since the synchronization of the files happens only upon syncconfig, the architecture Makefile included before this event does not see the change in configuration. As a consequence of this it is not possible to handle the cross compiler definitions inside the architecture Makefile. Address the problem removing CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO and moving the detection of the correct compiler into Kconfig via COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC. As a consequence of this it is not possible anymore to set the compat cross compiler from menuconfig but it requires to be exported via command line. E.g.: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=arm-linux-gnueabihf Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- arch/arm64/Makefile | 15 ++------------- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index 37c610963eee..afe8c948b493 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC) select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND select HAVE_PCI @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS default 0xffffffffffffffff +config COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) + source "arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms" menu "Kernel Features" diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) endif ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) - - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) - else - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 - endif + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 endif KBUILD_CFLAGS += -mgeneral-regs-only $(lseinstr) $(brokengasinst) \ -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 8:06 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:50AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > index 37c610963eee..afe8c948b493 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 > select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER > select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL > select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY > - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) > + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC) > select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ > select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND > select HAVE_PCI > @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET > default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS > default 0xffffffffffffffff > > +config COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC > + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) Nitpick: I prefer COMPATCC instead of COMPAT_CC for consistency with HOSTCC. Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. A next step would be to check that COMPATCC can actually generate 32-bit objects. But it's not essential at this stage. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile > index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile > @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) > endif > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) > - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) > - > - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) > - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) > - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) > - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) > - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) > - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) > - else > - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT > - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y > - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 > - endif > + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y > + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 > endif Has CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO actually been removed from lib/vdso/Kconfig? (I haven't checked the subsequent patches). -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-09-26 8:06 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:50AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > index 37c610963eee..afe8c948b493 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 > select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER > select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL > select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY > - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) > + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC) > select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ > select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND > select HAVE_PCI > @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET > default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS > default 0xffffffffffffffff > > +config COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC > + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) Nitpick: I prefer COMPATCC instead of COMPAT_CC for consistency with HOSTCC. Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. A next step would be to check that COMPATCC can actually generate 32-bit objects. But it's not essential at this stage. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile > index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile > @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) > endif > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) > - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) > - > - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) > - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) > - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) > - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) > - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) > - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) > - else > - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT > - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y > - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 > - endif > + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y > + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 > endif Has CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO actually been removed from lib/vdso/Kconfig? (I haven't checked the subsequent patches). -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 8:06 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 10:56 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:50AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >> index 37c610963eee..afe8c948b493 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 >> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER >> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL >> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY >> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) >> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC) >> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ >> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND >> select HAVE_PCI >> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET >> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS >> default 0xffffffffffffffff >> >> +config COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC >> + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) > > Nitpick: I prefer COMPATCC instead of COMPAT_CC for consistency with > HOSTCC. > Ok, will change this in v2. > Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use > $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really > doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. > All right, COMPATCC is already in the makefile, I will use it in here. > A next step would be to check that COMPATCC can actually generate 32-bit > objects. But it's not essential at this stage. > We are already checking this making sure that arm is present in the triple (grep -q arm). >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile >> index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile >> +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile >> @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) >> endif >> >> ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) >> - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) >> - >> - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) >> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) >> - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) >> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) >> - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) >> - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) >> - else >> - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT >> - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >> - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >> - endif >> + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >> + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >> endif > > Has CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO actually been removed from > lib/vdso/Kconfig? (I haven't checked the subsequent patches). > -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-09-26 10:56 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:50AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >> index 37c610963eee..afe8c948b493 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 >> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER >> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL >> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY >> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) >> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC) >> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ >> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND >> select HAVE_PCI >> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET >> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS >> default 0xffffffffffffffff >> >> +config COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC >> + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) > > Nitpick: I prefer COMPATCC instead of COMPAT_CC for consistency with > HOSTCC. > Ok, will change this in v2. > Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use > $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really > doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. > All right, COMPATCC is already in the makefile, I will use it in here. > A next step would be to check that COMPATCC can actually generate 32-bit > objects. But it's not essential at this stage. > We are already checking this making sure that arm is present in the triple (grep -q arm). >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile >> index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile >> +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile >> @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) >> endif >> >> ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) >> - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) >> - >> - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) >> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) >> - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) >> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) >> - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) >> - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) >> - else >> - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT >> - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >> - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >> - endif >> + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >> + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >> endif > > Has CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO actually been removed from > lib/vdso/Kconfig? (I haven't checked the subsequent patches). > -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 10:56 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 11:02 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 11:56 AM, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:50AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> index 37c610963eee..afe8c948b493 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 >>> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER >>> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL >>> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY >>> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) >>> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC) >>> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ >>> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND >>> select HAVE_PCI >>> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET >>> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS >>> default 0xffffffffffffffff >>> >>> +config COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC >>> + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) >> >> Nitpick: I prefer COMPATCC instead of COMPAT_CC for consistency with >> HOSTCC. >> > > Ok, will change this in v2. > >> Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use >> $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really >> doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. >> > > All right, COMPATCC is already in the makefile, I will use it in here. > >> A next step would be to check that COMPATCC can actually generate 32-bit >> objects. But it's not essential at this stage. >> > > We are already checking this making sure that arm is present in the triple (grep > -q arm). > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) >>> endif >>> >>> ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) >>> - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) >>> - >>> - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) >>> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) >>> - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) >>> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) >>> - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) >>> - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) >>> - else >>> - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT >>> - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >>> - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >>> - endif >>> + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >>> + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >>> endif >> >> Has CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO actually been removed from >> lib/vdso/Kconfig? (I haven't checked the subsequent patches). >> > Missed this, I have the patch ready for that. When this series will be merged, no more architectures will use the macro hence I will send a separate patch to remove it from the common code. -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-09-26 11:02 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 11:56 AM, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:50AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> index 37c610963eee..afe8c948b493 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 >>> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER >>> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL >>> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY >>> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) >>> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC) >>> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ >>> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND >>> select HAVE_PCI >>> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET >>> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS >>> default 0xffffffffffffffff >>> >>> +config COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC >>> + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) >> >> Nitpick: I prefer COMPATCC instead of COMPAT_CC for consistency with >> HOSTCC. >> > > Ok, will change this in v2. > >> Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use >> $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really >> doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. >> > > All right, COMPATCC is already in the makefile, I will use it in here. > >> A next step would be to check that COMPATCC can actually generate 32-bit >> objects. But it's not essential at this stage. >> > > We are already checking this making sure that arm is present in the triple (grep > -q arm). > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) >>> endif >>> >>> ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) >>> - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) >>> - >>> - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) >>> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) >>> - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) >>> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) >>> - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) >>> - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) >>> - else >>> - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT >>> - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >>> - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >>> - endif >>> + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >>> + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >>> endif >> >> Has CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO actually been removed from >> lib/vdso/Kconfig? (I haven't checked the subsequent patches). >> > Missed this, I have the patch ready for that. When this series will be merged, no more architectures will use the macro hence I will send a separate patch to remove it from the common code. -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 11:02 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 15:23 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:02:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 9/26/19 11:56 AM, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> Has CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO actually been removed from > >> lib/vdso/Kconfig? (I haven't checked the subsequent patches). > > Missed this, I have the patch ready for that. When this series will be merged, > no more architectures will use the macro hence I will send a separate patch to > remove it from the common code. Since arm64 was the only user, can you send it together with this series? I find it strange that Kbuild prompts me to enter this option when it wouldn't have any effect. -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-09-26 15:23 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:02:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 9/26/19 11:56 AM, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> Has CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO actually been removed from > >> lib/vdso/Kconfig? (I haven't checked the subsequent patches). > > Missed this, I have the patch ready for that. When this series will be merged, > no more architectures will use the macro hence I will send a separate patch to > remove it from the common code. Since arm64 was the only user, can you send it together with this series? I find it strange that Kbuild prompts me to enter this option when it wouldn't have any effect. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 10:56 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 12:22 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 11:56 AM, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:50AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> index 37c610963eee..afe8c948b493 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 >>> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER >>> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL >>> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY >>> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) >>> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC) >>> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ >>> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND >>> select HAVE_PCI >>> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET >>> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS >>> default 0xffffffffffffffff >>> >>> +config COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC >>> + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) >> >> Nitpick: I prefer COMPATCC instead of COMPAT_CC for consistency with >> HOSTCC. >> > > Ok, will change this in v2. > >> Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use >> $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really >> doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. >> > > All right, COMPATCC is already in the makefile, I will use it in here. > What you are proposing seems not possible because Kconfig runs first and then the arch Makefile, hence compatcc does not take effect on the Kconfig. I will post v2 with what I proposed, please feel free to comment if you have a better idea. arch/arm64/configs/defconfig:726:warning: symbol value 'm' invalid for REMOTEPROC # # configuration written to .config # make[1]: Leaving directory '/data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux-out' make[1]: Entering directory '/data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux-out' $COMPATCC is [arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc] GEN Makefile >> A next step would be to check that COMPATCC can actually generate 32-bit >> objects. But it's not essential at this stage. >> > > We are already checking this making sure that arm is present in the triple (grep > -q arm). > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) >>> endif >>> >>> ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) >>> - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) >>> - >>> - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) >>> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) >>> - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) >>> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) >>> - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) >>> - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) >>> - else >>> - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT >>> - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >>> - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >>> - endif >>> + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >>> + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >>> endif >> >> Has CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO actually been removed from >> lib/vdso/Kconfig? (I haven't checked the subsequent patches). >> > -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-09-26 12:22 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 11:56 AM, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:50AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> index 37c610963eee..afe8c948b493 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 >>> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER >>> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL >>> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY >>> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) >>> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC) >>> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ >>> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND >>> select HAVE_PCI >>> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET >>> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS >>> default 0xffffffffffffffff >>> >>> +config COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC >>> + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) >> >> Nitpick: I prefer COMPATCC instead of COMPAT_CC for consistency with >> HOSTCC. >> > > Ok, will change this in v2. > >> Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use >> $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really >> doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. >> > > All right, COMPATCC is already in the makefile, I will use it in here. > What you are proposing seems not possible because Kconfig runs first and then the arch Makefile, hence compatcc does not take effect on the Kconfig. I will post v2 with what I proposed, please feel free to comment if you have a better idea. arch/arm64/configs/defconfig:726:warning: symbol value 'm' invalid for REMOTEPROC # # configuration written to .config # make[1]: Leaving directory '/data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux-out' make[1]: Entering directory '/data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux-out' $COMPATCC is [arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc] GEN Makefile >> A next step would be to check that COMPATCC can actually generate 32-bit >> objects. But it's not essential at this stage. >> > > We are already checking this making sure that arm is present in the triple (grep > -q arm). > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile >>> @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) >>> endif >>> >>> ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) >>> - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) >>> - >>> - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) >>> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) >>> - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) >>> - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) >>> - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) >>> - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) >>> - else >>> - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT >>> - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >>> - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >>> - endif >>> + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y >>> + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 >>> endif >> >> Has CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO actually been removed from >> lib/vdso/Kconfig? (I haven't checked the subsequent patches). >> > -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 12:22 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 15:17 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:22:01PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 9/26/19 11:56 AM, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use > >> $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really > >> doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. > >> > > > > All right, COMPATCC is already in the makefile, I will use it in here. > > What you are proposing seems not possible because Kconfig runs first and then > the arch Makefile, hence compatcc does not take effect on the Kconfig. I will > post v2 with what I proposed, please feel free to comment if you have a better idea. I think it works as long as you export COMPATCC from the arch/arm64/Makefile. The arch Makefile is used in the config step AFAICT. See the diff I posted in my reply to your v2. -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-09-26 15:17 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:22:01PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 9/26/19 11:56 AM, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use > >> $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really > >> doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. > >> > > > > All right, COMPATCC is already in the makefile, I will use it in here. > > What you are proposing seems not possible because Kconfig runs first and then > the arch Makefile, hence compatcc does not take effect on the Kconfig. I will > post v2 with what I proposed, please feel free to comment if you have a better idea. I think it works as long as you export COMPATCC from the arch/arm64/Makefile. The arch Makefile is used in the config step AFAICT. See the diff I posted in my reply to your v2. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 15:17 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 20:17 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 4:17 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:22:01PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> On 9/26/19 11:56 AM, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>> On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>> Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use >>>> $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really >>>> doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. >>>> >>> >>> All right, COMPATCC is already in the makefile, I will use it in here. >> >> What you are proposing seems not possible because Kconfig runs first and then >> the arch Makefile, hence compatcc does not take effect on the Kconfig. I will >> post v2 with what I proposed, please feel free to comment if you have a better idea. > > I think it works as long as you export COMPATCC from the > arch/arm64/Makefile. The arch Makefile is used in the config step > AFAICT. See the diff I posted in my reply to your v2. > All right I will retry and repost v3 if I can get it working. -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-09-26 20:17 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 4:17 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:22:01PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> On 9/26/19 11:56 AM, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>> On 9/26/19 9:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>> Now, could we not generate a COMPATCC in the Makefile and use >>>> $(COMPATCC) here instead of $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc? It really >>>> doesn't make sense to check that gcc is gcc. >>>> >>> >>> All right, COMPATCC is already in the makefile, I will use it in here. >> >> What you are proposing seems not possible because Kconfig runs first and then >> the arch Makefile, hence compatcc does not take effect on the Kconfig. I will >> post v2 with what I proposed, please feel free to comment if you have a better idea. > > I think it works as long as you export COMPATCC from the > arch/arm64/Makefile. The arch Makefile is used in the config step > AFAICT. See the diff I posted in my reply to your v2. > All right I will retry and repost v3 if I can get it working. -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the vdso32 library. Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 5 ++++- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 1fba0776ed40..1a3299d901b1 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ endif VDSO_CAFLAGS += -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING +# Check for binutils support for dmb ishld +dmbinstr := $(call as-instr,dmb ishld,-DCONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD=1) + # Try to compile for ARMv8. If the compiler is too old and doesn't support it, # fall back to v7. There is no easy way to check for what architecture the code # is being compiled, so define a macro specifying that (see arch/arm/Makefile). @@ -62,7 +65,7 @@ VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-march=armv8-a -D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=8,\ -march=armv7-a -D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=7) VDSO_CFLAGS := $(VDSO_CAFLAGS) -VDSO_CFLAGS += -DENABLE_COMPAT_VDSO=1 +VDSO_CFLAGS += -DENABLE_COMPAT_VDSO=1 $(dmbinstr) # KBUILD_CFLAGS from top-level Makefile VDSO_CFLAGS += -Wall -Wundef -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs \ -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common \ -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the vdso32 library. Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 5 ++++- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 1fba0776ed40..1a3299d901b1 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ endif VDSO_CAFLAGS += -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING +# Check for binutils support for dmb ishld +dmbinstr := $(call as-instr,dmb ishld,-DCONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD=1) + # Try to compile for ARMv8. If the compiler is too old and doesn't support it, # fall back to v7. There is no easy way to check for what architecture the code # is being compiled, so define a macro specifying that (see arch/arm/Makefile). @@ -62,7 +65,7 @@ VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-march=armv8-a -D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=8,\ -march=armv7-a -D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=7) VDSO_CFLAGS := $(VDSO_CAFLAGS) -VDSO_CFLAGS += -DENABLE_COMPAT_VDSO=1 +VDSO_CFLAGS += -DENABLE_COMPAT_VDSO=1 $(dmbinstr) # KBUILD_CFLAGS from top-level Makefile VDSO_CFLAGS += -Wall -Wundef -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs \ -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common \ -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 8:30 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 8:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:51AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ > > #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") > > -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 > +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) > #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) > #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) > #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > index 1fba0776ed40..1a3299d901b1 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ endif > VDSO_CAFLAGS += -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector > VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING > > +# Check for binutils support for dmb ishld > +dmbinstr := $(call as-instr,dmb ishld,-DCONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD=1) Is this check for the compat gas or the native one? Looking at scripts/Kbuild.include, as-instr uses CC but you'd need a COMPATCC here instead. I may have missed something but I don't think this fixes the issue Will's issue since he reported the problem with an old compat binutils. -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-09-26 8:30 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 8:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:51AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ > > #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") > > -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 > +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) > #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) > #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) > #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > index 1fba0776ed40..1a3299d901b1 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ endif > VDSO_CAFLAGS += -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector > VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING > > +# Check for binutils support for dmb ishld > +dmbinstr := $(call as-instr,dmb ishld,-DCONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD=1) Is this check for the compat gas or the native one? Looking at scripts/Kbuild.include, as-instr uses CC but you'd need a COMPATCC here instead. I may have missed something but I don't think this fixes the issue Will's issue since he reported the problem with an old compat binutils. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-09-26 8:30 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 10:59 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On 9/26/19 9:30 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:51AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h >> index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h >> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ >> >> #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") >> >> -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 >> +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) >> #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) >> #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) >> #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile >> index 1fba0776ed40..1a3299d901b1 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile >> @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ endif >> VDSO_CAFLAGS += -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector >> VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING >> >> +# Check for binutils support for dmb ishld >> +dmbinstr := $(call as-instr,dmb ishld,-DCONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD=1) > > Is this check for the compat gas or the native one? Looking at > scripts/Kbuild.include, as-instr uses CC but you'd need a COMPATCC here > instead. > > I may have missed something but I don't think this fixes the issue > Will's issue since he reported the problem with an old compat binutils. > Good catch I thought that it was sufficient to put it in the correct makefile, but I missed that COMPATCC != CC. This selects the wrong binutils. Need to add something in Kbuild for that. -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-09-26 10:59 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 9:30 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:51AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h >> index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h >> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ >> >> #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") >> >> -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 >> +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) >> #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) >> #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) >> #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile >> index 1fba0776ed40..1a3299d901b1 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile >> @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ endif >> VDSO_CAFLAGS += -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector >> VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING >> >> +# Check for binutils support for dmb ishld >> +dmbinstr := $(call as-instr,dmb ishld,-DCONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD=1) > > Is this check for the compat gas or the native one? Looking at > scripts/Kbuild.include, as-instr uses CC but you'd need a COMPATCC here > instead. > > I may have missed something but I don't think this fixes the issue > Will's issue since he reported the problem with an old compat binutils. > Good catch I thought that it was sufficient to put it in the correct makefile, but I missed that COMPATCC != CC. This selects the wrong binutils. Need to add something in Kbuild for that. -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/4] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx As reported by Will Deacon the following compilation warning appears during the compilation of the vdso32: In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, from ./include/linux/time.h:6, from .../work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, from <command-line>:0: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); ^ In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); ^ This happens because few 64 bit compilation headers are included during the generation of vdso32. Fix the issue redefining the __tag_set function. Note: This fix is meant to be temporary, a more comprehensive solution based on the refactoring of the generic headers will be provided with a future patch set. At that point it will be possible to revert this patch. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h index b61b50bf68b1..b1c8c43234c5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h @@ -228,11 +228,16 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) #define __tag_get(addr) 0 #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ +#ifdef __aarch64__ static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) { u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); } +#else +/* Unused in 32 bit mode */ +#define __tag_set(addr, tag) 0 +#endif /* * Physical vs virtual RAM address space conversion. These are -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/4] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning @ 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will As reported by Will Deacon the following compilation warning appears during the compilation of the vdso32: In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, from ./include/linux/time.h:6, from .../work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, from <command-line>:0: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); ^ In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); ^ This happens because few 64 bit compilation headers are included during the generation of vdso32. Fix the issue redefining the __tag_set function. Note: This fix is meant to be temporary, a more comprehensive solution based on the refactoring of the generic headers will be provided with a future patch set. At that point it will be possible to revert this patch. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h index b61b50bf68b1..b1c8c43234c5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h @@ -228,11 +228,16 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) #define __tag_get(addr) 0 #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ +#ifdef __aarch64__ static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) { u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); } +#else +/* Unused in 32 bit mode */ +#define __tag_set(addr, tag) 0 +#endif /* * Physical vs virtual RAM address space conversion. These are -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 8:32 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:52AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > index b61b50bf68b1..b1c8c43234c5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > @@ -228,11 +228,16 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) > #define __tag_get(addr) 0 > #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ > > +#ifdef __aarch64__ > static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) > { > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); > } > +#else > +/* Unused in 32 bit mode */ > +#define __tag_set(addr, tag) 0 > +#endif I'm fine with this as a temporary workaround (or hack). But please add a better comment on what the 32-bit mode is about - the compat vDSO. -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning @ 2019-09-26 8:32 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:52AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > index b61b50bf68b1..b1c8c43234c5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > @@ -228,11 +228,16 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) > #define __tag_get(addr) 0 > #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ > > +#ifdef __aarch64__ > static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) > { > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); > } > +#else > +/* Unused in 32 bit mode */ > +#define __tag_set(addr, tag) 0 > +#endif I'm fine with this as a temporary workaround (or hack). But please add a better comment on what the 32-bit mode is about - the compat vDSO. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning 2019-09-26 8:32 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 11:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On 9/26/19 9:32 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:52AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> index b61b50bf68b1..b1c8c43234c5 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> @@ -228,11 +228,16 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) >> #define __tag_get(addr) 0 >> #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ >> >> +#ifdef __aarch64__ >> static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) >> { >> u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); >> return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); >> } >> +#else >> +/* Unused in 32 bit mode */ >> +#define __tag_set(addr, tag) 0 >> +#endif > > I'm fine with this as a temporary workaround (or hack). But please add a > better comment on what the 32-bit mode is about - the compat vDSO. > Ok, I will do in v2, to avoid confusion. -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning @ 2019-09-26 11:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 9:32 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:52AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> index b61b50bf68b1..b1c8c43234c5 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> @@ -228,11 +228,16 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) >> #define __tag_get(addr) 0 >> #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ >> >> +#ifdef __aarch64__ >> static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) >> { >> u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); >> return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); >> } >> +#else >> +/* Unused in 32 bit mode */ >> +#define __tag_set(addr, tag) 0 >> +#endif > > I'm fine with this as a temporary workaround (or hack). But please add a > better comment on what the 32-bit mode is about - the compat vDSO. > Ok, I will do in v2, to avoid confusion. -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 4/4] arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx gettimeofday.S was originally removed with the introduction of the support for Unified vDSOs in arm64 and replaced with the C implementation. The file seems again present in the repository due to a side effect of rebase. Remove the file again. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S deleted file mode 100644 index e69de29bb2d1..000000000000 -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 4/4] arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S @ 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will gettimeofday.S was originally removed with the introduction of the support for Unified vDSOs in arm64 and replaced with the C implementation. The file seems again present in the repository due to a side effect of rebase. Remove the file again. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S deleted file mode 100644 index e69de29bb2d1..000000000000 -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 8:34 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:53AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > gettimeofday.S was originally removed with the introduction of the > support for Unified vDSOs in arm64 and replaced with the C > implementation. > > The file seems again present in the repository due to a side effect of > rebase. > > Remove the file again. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> Nitpick: don't leave a space between the Cc and the Sob lines, it all comes as a single block. Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S @ 2019-09-26 8:34 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 07:03:53AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > gettimeofday.S was originally removed with the introduction of the > support for Unified vDSOs in arm64 and replaced with the C > implementation. > > The file seems again present in the repository due to a side effect of > rebase. > > Remove the file again. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> Nitpick: don't leave a space between the Cc and the Sob lines, it all comes as a single block. Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: vdso32: Address various issues 2019-09-20 14:27 Problems with arm64 compat vdso Will Deacon @ 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx Hi Will, this patch series is meant to address the various compilation issues you reported about arm64 vdso32. (This time for real I hope ;)) Please let me know if there is still something missing. Thanks, Vincenzo Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> --- v2: - Fixed binutils detection - Addressed review comments Vincenzo Frascino (4): arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S arch/arm64/Kbuild | 6 ++++++ arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- arch/arm64/Makefile | 15 ++------------- arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 5 +++++ arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S | 0 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ 7 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: vdso32: Address various issues @ 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will Hi Will, this patch series is meant to address the various compilation issues you reported about arm64 vdso32. (This time for real I hope ;)) Please let me know if there is still something missing. Thanks, Vincenzo Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> --- v2: - Fixed binutils detection - Addressed review comments Vincenzo Frascino (4): arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S arch/arm64/Kbuild | 6 ++++++ arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- arch/arm64/Makefile | 15 ++------------- arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 5 +++++ arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S | 0 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ 7 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx As reported by Will Deacon the .config file and the generated include/config/auto.conf can end up out of sync after a set of commands since CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO is not updated correctly. The sequence can be reproduced as follows: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig [...] $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- Which results in: arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built even though the compat vDSO has been built: $ file arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so: ELF 32-bit LSB pie executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=c67f6c786f2d2d6f86c71f708595594aa25247f6, stripped A similar case that involves changing the configuration parameter multiple times can be reconducted to the same family of problems. The reason behind it comes from the fact that the master Makefile includes that architecture Makefile twice, once before the syncconfig and one after. Since the synchronization of the files happens only upon syncconfig, the architecture Makefile included before this event does not see the change in configuration. As a consequence of this it is not possible to handle the cross compiler definitions inside the architecture Makefile. Address the problem removing CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO and moving the detection of the correct compiler into Kconfig via COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC. As a consequence of this it is not possible anymore to set the compat cross compiler from menuconfig but it requires to be exported via command line. E.g.: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=arm-linux-gnueabihf Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- arch/arm64/Makefile | 15 ++------------- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index 37c610963eee..13e2d2e16af7 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_GCC) select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND select HAVE_PCI @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS default 0xffffffffffffffff +config COMPATCC_IS_GCC + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) + source "arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms" menu "Kernel Features" diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) endif ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) - - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) - else - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 - endif + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 endif KBUILD_CFLAGS += -mgeneral-regs-only $(lseinstr) $(brokengasinst) \ -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will As reported by Will Deacon the .config file and the generated include/config/auto.conf can end up out of sync after a set of commands since CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO is not updated correctly. The sequence can be reproduced as follows: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig [...] $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- Which results in: arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built even though the compat vDSO has been built: $ file arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so: ELF 32-bit LSB pie executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=c67f6c786f2d2d6f86c71f708595594aa25247f6, stripped A similar case that involves changing the configuration parameter multiple times can be reconducted to the same family of problems. The reason behind it comes from the fact that the master Makefile includes that architecture Makefile twice, once before the syncconfig and one after. Since the synchronization of the files happens only upon syncconfig, the architecture Makefile included before this event does not see the change in configuration. As a consequence of this it is not possible to handle the cross compiler definitions inside the architecture Makefile. Address the problem removing CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO and moving the detection of the correct compiler into Kconfig via COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC. As a consequence of this it is not possible anymore to set the compat cross compiler from menuconfig but it requires to be exported via command line. E.g.: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=arm-linux-gnueabihf Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- arch/arm64/Makefile | 15 ++------------- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index 37c610963eee..13e2d2e16af7 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_GCC) select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND select HAVE_PCI @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS default 0xffffffffffffffff +config COMPATCC_IS_GCC + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) + source "arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms" menu "Kernel Features" diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile index 84a3d502c5a5..34f53eb11878 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile @@ -54,19 +54,8 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) endif ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) - - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) - else - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 - endif + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 endif KBUILD_CFLAGS += -mgeneral-regs-only $(lseinstr) $(brokengasinst) \ -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 15:13 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:02PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > index 37c610963eee..13e2d2e16af7 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 > select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER > select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL > select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY > - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) > + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_GCC) > select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ > select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND > select HAVE_PCI > @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET > default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS > default 0xffffffffffffffff > > +config COMPATCC_IS_GCC > + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) Nitpick: COMPAT_CC_IS_ARM_GCC together with 'grep -q "arm-.*-gcc"' The patch below allows me to use $(COMPATCC) directly here and also set either CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT or COMPATCC on the command line: ----------8<---------------------------------- diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kbuild b/arch/arm64/Kbuild index 75cf8c796d0e..d6465823b281 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kbuild +++ b/arch/arm64/Kbuild @@ -4,9 +4,3 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NET) += net/ obj-$(CONFIG_KVM) += kvm/ obj-$(CONFIG_XEN) += xen/ obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO) += crypto/ - -# as-instr-compat -# Usage: cflags-y += $(call as-instr-compat,instr,option1,option2) - -as-instr-compat = $(call try-run,\ - printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(KBUILD_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index 5d4be0b4f980..811c89fa2b71 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_GCC) + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND select HAVE_PCI @@ -313,8 +313,8 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS default 0xffffffffffffffff -config COMPATCC_IS_GCC - def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") source "arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms" diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile index 34f53eb11878..6b4eb5c444c5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) endif endif +COMPATCC ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc +export COMPATCC + ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 22f0d31ea528..77aa61340374 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -8,8 +8,6 @@ ARCH_REL_TYPE_ABS := R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT|R_ARM_GLOB_DAT|R_ARM_ABS32 include $(srctree)/lib/vdso/Makefile -COMPATCC := $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc - # Same as cc-*option, but using COMPATCC instead of CC cc32-option = $(call try-run,\ $(COMPATCC) $(1) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-09-26 15:13 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:02PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > index 37c610963eee..13e2d2e16af7 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 > select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER > select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL > select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY > - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) > + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_GCC) > select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ > select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND > select HAVE_PCI > @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET > default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS > default 0xffffffffffffffff > > +config COMPATCC_IS_GCC > + def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) Nitpick: COMPAT_CC_IS_ARM_GCC together with 'grep -q "arm-.*-gcc"' The patch below allows me to use $(COMPATCC) directly here and also set either CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT or COMPATCC on the command line: ----------8<---------------------------------- diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kbuild b/arch/arm64/Kbuild index 75cf8c796d0e..d6465823b281 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kbuild +++ b/arch/arm64/Kbuild @@ -4,9 +4,3 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NET) += net/ obj-$(CONFIG_KVM) += kvm/ obj-$(CONFIG_XEN) += xen/ obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO) += crypto/ - -# as-instr-compat -# Usage: cflags-y += $(call as-instr-compat,instr,option1,option2) - -as-instr-compat = $(call try-run,\ - printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(KBUILD_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index 5d4be0b4f980..811c89fa2b71 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_GCC) + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND select HAVE_PCI @@ -313,8 +313,8 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS default 0xffffffffffffffff -config COMPATCC_IS_GCC - def_bool $(success,$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc --version | head -n 1 | grep -q arm) +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") source "arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms" diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile index 34f53eb11878..6b4eb5c444c5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) endif endif +COMPATCC ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc +export COMPATCC + ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 22f0d31ea528..77aa61340374 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -8,8 +8,6 @@ ARCH_REL_TYPE_ABS := R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT|R_ARM_GLOB_DAT|R_ARM_ABS32 include $(srctree)/lib/vdso/Makefile -COMPATCC := $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc - # Same as cc-*option, but using COMPATCC instead of CC cc32-option = $(call try-run,\ $(COMPATCC) $(1) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the vdso32 library. Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/Kbuild | 6 ++++++ arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kbuild b/arch/arm64/Kbuild index d6465823b281..75cf8c796d0e 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kbuild +++ b/arch/arm64/Kbuild @@ -4,3 +4,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NET) += net/ obj-$(CONFIG_KVM) += kvm/ obj-$(CONFIG_XEN) += xen/ obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO) += crypto/ + +# as-instr-compat +# Usage: cflags-y += $(call as-instr-compat,instr,option1,option2) + +as-instr-compat = $(call try-run,\ + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(KBUILD_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 1fba0776ed40..22f0d31ea528 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ cc32-disable-warning = $(call try-run,\ $(COMPATCC) -W$(strip $(1)) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) cc32-ldoption = $(call try-run,\ $(COMPATCC) $(1) -nostdlib -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) +cc32-as-instr = $(call try-run,\ + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(VDSO_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) # We cannot use the global flags to compile the vDSO files, the main reason # being that the 32-bit compiler may be older than the main (64-bit) compiler @@ -55,6 +57,7 @@ endif VDSO_CAFLAGS += -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING + # Try to compile for ARMv8. If the compiler is too old and doesn't support it, # fall back to v7. There is no easy way to check for what architecture the code # is being compiled, so define a macro specifying that (see arch/arm/Makefile). @@ -91,6 +94,12 @@ VDSO_CFLAGS += -Wno-int-to-pointer-cast VDSO_AFLAGS := $(VDSO_CAFLAGS) VDSO_AFLAGS += -D__ASSEMBLY__ +# Check for binutils support for dmb ishld +dmbinstr := $(call cc32-as-instr,dmb ishld,-DCONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD=1) + +VDSO_CFLAGS += $(dmbinstr) +VDSO_AFLAGS += $(dmbinstr) + VDSO_LDFLAGS := $(VDSO_CPPFLAGS) # From arm vDSO Makefile VDSO_LDFLAGS += -Wl,-Bsymbolic -Wl,--no-undefined -Wl,-soname=linux-vdso.so.1 -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the vdso32 library. Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/Kbuild | 6 ++++++ arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kbuild b/arch/arm64/Kbuild index d6465823b281..75cf8c796d0e 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kbuild +++ b/arch/arm64/Kbuild @@ -4,3 +4,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NET) += net/ obj-$(CONFIG_KVM) += kvm/ obj-$(CONFIG_XEN) += xen/ obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO) += crypto/ + +# as-instr-compat +# Usage: cflags-y += $(call as-instr-compat,instr,option1,option2) + +as-instr-compat = $(call try-run,\ + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(KBUILD_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 1fba0776ed40..22f0d31ea528 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ cc32-disable-warning = $(call try-run,\ $(COMPATCC) -W$(strip $(1)) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) cc32-ldoption = $(call try-run,\ $(COMPATCC) $(1) -nostdlib -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) +cc32-as-instr = $(call try-run,\ + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(VDSO_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) # We cannot use the global flags to compile the vDSO files, the main reason # being that the 32-bit compiler may be older than the main (64-bit) compiler @@ -55,6 +57,7 @@ endif VDSO_CAFLAGS += -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING + # Try to compile for ARMv8. If the compiler is too old and doesn't support it, # fall back to v7. There is no easy way to check for what architecture the code # is being compiled, so define a macro specifying that (see arch/arm/Makefile). @@ -91,6 +94,12 @@ VDSO_CFLAGS += -Wno-int-to-pointer-cast VDSO_AFLAGS := $(VDSO_CAFLAGS) VDSO_AFLAGS += -D__ASSEMBLY__ +# Check for binutils support for dmb ishld +dmbinstr := $(call cc32-as-instr,dmb ishld,-DCONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD=1) + +VDSO_CFLAGS += $(dmbinstr) +VDSO_AFLAGS += $(dmbinstr) + VDSO_LDFLAGS := $(VDSO_CPPFLAGS) # From arm vDSO Makefile VDSO_LDFLAGS += -Wl,-Bsymbolic -Wl,--no-undefined -Wl,-soname=linux-vdso.so.1 -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 14:26 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:03PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kbuild b/arch/arm64/Kbuild > index d6465823b281..75cf8c796d0e 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kbuild > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kbuild > @@ -4,3 +4,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NET) += net/ > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM) += kvm/ > obj-$(CONFIG_XEN) += xen/ > obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO) += crypto/ > + > +# as-instr-compat > +# Usage: cflags-y += $(call as-instr-compat,instr,option1,option2) > + > +as-instr-compat = $(call try-run,\ > + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(KBUILD_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) This doesn't seem to be used anywhere. Was it meant to be replaced by cc32-as-instr? -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-09-26 14:26 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:03PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kbuild b/arch/arm64/Kbuild > index d6465823b281..75cf8c796d0e 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kbuild > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kbuild > @@ -4,3 +4,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NET) += net/ > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM) += kvm/ > obj-$(CONFIG_XEN) += xen/ > obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO) += crypto/ > + > +# as-instr-compat > +# Usage: cflags-y += $(call as-instr-compat,instr,option1,option2) > + > +as-instr-compat = $(call try-run,\ > + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(KBUILD_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) This doesn't seem to be used anywhere. Was it meant to be replaced by cc32-as-instr? -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-09-26 14:26 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 20:19 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 20:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 3:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:03PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kbuild b/arch/arm64/Kbuild >> index d6465823b281..75cf8c796d0e 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/Kbuild >> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kbuild >> @@ -4,3 +4,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NET) += net/ >> obj-$(CONFIG_KVM) += kvm/ >> obj-$(CONFIG_XEN) += xen/ >> obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO) += crypto/ >> + >> +# as-instr-compat >> +# Usage: cflags-y += $(call as-instr-compat,instr,option1,option2) >> + >> +as-instr-compat = $(call try-run,\ >> + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(KBUILD_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) > > This doesn't seem to be used anywhere. Was it meant to be replaced by > cc32-as-instr? > Forgot to squash a stash here. Will fix in v3. This is not used anymore was just an experiment. -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-09-26 20:19 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 20:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 3:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:03PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kbuild b/arch/arm64/Kbuild >> index d6465823b281..75cf8c796d0e 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/Kbuild >> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kbuild >> @@ -4,3 +4,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NET) += net/ >> obj-$(CONFIG_KVM) += kvm/ >> obj-$(CONFIG_XEN) += xen/ >> obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO) += crypto/ >> + >> +# as-instr-compat >> +# Usage: cflags-y += $(call as-instr-compat,instr,option1,option2) >> + >> +as-instr-compat = $(call try-run,\ >> + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(KBUILD_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) > > This doesn't seem to be used anywhere. Was it meant to be replaced by > cc32-as-instr? > Forgot to squash a stash here. Will fix in v3. This is not used anymore was just an experiment. -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 15:59 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:03PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ Could you please also remove the unnecessary gcc-goto.sh check in this file? We don't use jump labels in the vdso (can't run-time patch them). I found it while forcing COMPATCC=clang with my additional diff and I get the warning on 'make clean'. diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 22f0d31ea528..038357a1e835 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -40,9 +38,6 @@ VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-fno-PIE) ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO VDSO_CAFLAGS += -g endif -ifeq ($(shell $(CONFIG_SHELL) $(srctree)/scripts/gcc-goto.sh $(COMPATCC)), y) -VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DCC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO -endif # From arm Makefile VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm) -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-09-26 15:59 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:03PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ Could you please also remove the unnecessary gcc-goto.sh check in this file? We don't use jump labels in the vdso (can't run-time patch them). I found it while forcing COMPATCC=clang with my additional diff and I get the warning on 'make clean'. diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 22f0d31ea528..038357a1e835 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -40,9 +38,6 @@ VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-fno-PIE) ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO VDSO_CAFLAGS += -g endif -ifeq ($(shell $(CONFIG_SHELL) $(srctree)/scripts/gcc-goto.sh $(COMPATCC)), y) -VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DCC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO -endif # From arm Makefile VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm) -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-09-26 15:59 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 21:17 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On 9/26/19 4:59 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:03PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ > > Could you please also remove the unnecessary gcc-goto.sh check in this > file? We don't use jump labels in the vdso (can't run-time patch them). > I found it while forcing COMPATCC=clang with my additional diff and I > get the warning on 'make clean'. > I will do it in a separate cleanup patch, I want to keep this only for the error reported by Will. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > index 22f0d31ea528..038357a1e835 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > @@ -40,9 +38,6 @@ VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-fno-PIE) > ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO > VDSO_CAFLAGS += -g > endif > -ifeq ($(shell $(CONFIG_SHELL) $(srctree)/scripts/gcc-goto.sh $(COMPATCC)), y) > -VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DCC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO > -endif > > # From arm Makefile > VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm) > -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-09-26 21:17 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 4:59 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:03PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ > > Could you please also remove the unnecessary gcc-goto.sh check in this > file? We don't use jump labels in the vdso (can't run-time patch them). > I found it while forcing COMPATCC=clang with my additional diff and I > get the warning on 'make clean'. > I will do it in a separate cleanup patch, I want to keep this only for the error reported by Will. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > index 22f0d31ea528..038357a1e835 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > @@ -40,9 +38,6 @@ VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-fno-PIE) > ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO > VDSO_CAFLAGS += -g > endif > -ifeq ($(shell $(CONFIG_SHELL) $(srctree)/scripts/gcc-goto.sh $(COMPATCC)), y) > -VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DCC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO > -endif > > # From arm Makefile > VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm) > -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 16:23 ` Nick Desaulniers -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Nick Desaulniers @ 2019-09-26 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino, Will Deacon Cc: Linux ARM, LKML, Ard Biesheuvel, Catalin Marinas, Thomas Gleixner On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:38 AM Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote: > > As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not > support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the > vdso32 library. Do we know which specific version of binutils has this problem? Documentation/process/changes.rst lists 2.21+ as the supported versions. If it's older than that, it's unsupported. I triple checked android's 2.27 seems ok. $ cat bar.s .text .globl foo dmb ish dmb ishld dmb ishst $ aarch64-linux-gnu-as bar.s $ echo $? 0 $ llvm-objdump -d a.out a.out: file format ELF64-aarch64-little Disassembly of section .text: 0000000000000000 $x: 0: bf 3b 03 d5 dmb ish 4: bf 39 03 d5 dmb ishld 8: bf 3a 03 d5 dmb ishst > > Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those > instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm64/Kbuild | 6 ++++++ > arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kbuild b/arch/arm64/Kbuild > index d6465823b281..75cf8c796d0e 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kbuild > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kbuild > @@ -4,3 +4,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NET) += net/ > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM) += kvm/ > obj-$(CONFIG_XEN) += xen/ > obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO) += crypto/ > + > +# as-instr-compat > +# Usage: cflags-y += $(call as-instr-compat,instr,option1,option2) > + > +as-instr-compat = $(call try-run,\ > + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(KBUILD_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ > > #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") > > -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 > +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) > #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) > #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) > #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > index 1fba0776ed40..22f0d31ea528 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ cc32-disable-warning = $(call try-run,\ > $(COMPATCC) -W$(strip $(1)) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) > cc32-ldoption = $(call try-run,\ > $(COMPATCC) $(1) -nostdlib -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) > +cc32-as-instr = $(call try-run,\ > + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(VDSO_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) > > # We cannot use the global flags to compile the vDSO files, the main reason > # being that the 32-bit compiler may be older than the main (64-bit) compiler > @@ -55,6 +57,7 @@ endif > VDSO_CAFLAGS += -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector > VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING > > + > # Try to compile for ARMv8. If the compiler is too old and doesn't support it, > # fall back to v7. There is no easy way to check for what architecture the code > # is being compiled, so define a macro specifying that (see arch/arm/Makefile). > @@ -91,6 +94,12 @@ VDSO_CFLAGS += -Wno-int-to-pointer-cast > VDSO_AFLAGS := $(VDSO_CAFLAGS) > VDSO_AFLAGS += -D__ASSEMBLY__ > > +# Check for binutils support for dmb ishld > +dmbinstr := $(call cc32-as-instr,dmb ishld,-DCONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD=1) > + > +VDSO_CFLAGS += $(dmbinstr) > +VDSO_AFLAGS += $(dmbinstr) > + > VDSO_LDFLAGS := $(VDSO_CPPFLAGS) > # From arm vDSO Makefile > VDSO_LDFLAGS += -Wl,-Bsymbolic -Wl,--no-undefined -Wl,-soname=linux-vdso.so.1 > -- > 2.23.0 > -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-09-26 16:23 ` Nick Desaulniers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Nick Desaulniers @ 2019-09-26 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino, Will Deacon Cc: Catalin Marinas, Thomas Gleixner, LKML, Linux ARM, Ard Biesheuvel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:38 AM Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote: > > As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not > support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the > vdso32 library. Do we know which specific version of binutils has this problem? Documentation/process/changes.rst lists 2.21+ as the supported versions. If it's older than that, it's unsupported. I triple checked android's 2.27 seems ok. $ cat bar.s .text .globl foo dmb ish dmb ishld dmb ishst $ aarch64-linux-gnu-as bar.s $ echo $? 0 $ llvm-objdump -d a.out a.out: file format ELF64-aarch64-little Disassembly of section .text: 0000000000000000 $x: 0: bf 3b 03 d5 dmb ish 4: bf 39 03 d5 dmb ishld 8: bf 3a 03 d5 dmb ishst > > Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those > instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm64/Kbuild | 6 ++++++ > arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kbuild b/arch/arm64/Kbuild > index d6465823b281..75cf8c796d0e 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kbuild > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kbuild > @@ -4,3 +4,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_NET) += net/ > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM) += kvm/ > obj-$(CONFIG_XEN) += xen/ > obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO) += crypto/ > + > +# as-instr-compat > +# Usage: cflags-y += $(call as-instr-compat,instr,option1,option2) > + > +as-instr-compat = $(call try-run,\ > + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(KBUILD_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ > > #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") > > -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 > +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) > #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) > #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) > #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > index 1fba0776ed40..22f0d31ea528 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ cc32-disable-warning = $(call try-run,\ > $(COMPATCC) -W$(strip $(1)) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) > cc32-ldoption = $(call try-run,\ > $(COMPATCC) $(1) -nostdlib -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) > +cc32-as-instr = $(call try-run,\ > + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(VDSO_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) > > # We cannot use the global flags to compile the vDSO files, the main reason > # being that the 32-bit compiler may be older than the main (64-bit) compiler > @@ -55,6 +57,7 @@ endif > VDSO_CAFLAGS += -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector > VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING > > + > # Try to compile for ARMv8. If the compiler is too old and doesn't support it, > # fall back to v7. There is no easy way to check for what architecture the code > # is being compiled, so define a macro specifying that (see arch/arm/Makefile). > @@ -91,6 +94,12 @@ VDSO_CFLAGS += -Wno-int-to-pointer-cast > VDSO_AFLAGS := $(VDSO_CAFLAGS) > VDSO_AFLAGS += -D__ASSEMBLY__ > > +# Check for binutils support for dmb ishld > +dmbinstr := $(call cc32-as-instr,dmb ishld,-DCONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD=1) > + > +VDSO_CFLAGS += $(dmbinstr) > +VDSO_AFLAGS += $(dmbinstr) > + > VDSO_LDFLAGS := $(VDSO_CPPFLAGS) > # From arm vDSO Makefile > VDSO_LDFLAGS += -Wl,-Bsymbolic -Wl,--no-undefined -Wl,-soname=linux-vdso.so.1 > -- > 2.23.0 > -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx As reported by Will Deacon the following compilation warning appears during the compilation of the vdso32: In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, from ./include/linux/time.h:6, from .../work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, from <command-line>:0: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); ^ In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); ^ This happens because few 64 bit compilation headers are included during the generation of vdso32. Fix the issue redefining the __tag_set function. Note: This fix is meant to be temporary, a more comprehensive solution based on the refactoring of the generic headers will be provided with a future patch set. At that point it will be possible to revert this patch. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h index b61b50bf68b1..cfa9cd87af14 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h @@ -228,11 +228,16 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) #define __tag_get(addr) 0 #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ +#ifdef __aarch64__ static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) { u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); } +#else +/* Unused in compat vdso */ +#define __tag_set(addr, tag) 0 +#endif /* * Physical vs virtual RAM address space conversion. These are -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning @ 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will As reported by Will Deacon the following compilation warning appears during the compilation of the vdso32: In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, from ./include/linux/time.h:6, from .../work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, from <command-line>:0: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); ^ In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); ^ This happens because few 64 bit compilation headers are included during the generation of vdso32. Fix the issue redefining the __tag_set function. Note: This fix is meant to be temporary, a more comprehensive solution based on the refactoring of the generic headers will be provided with a future patch set. At that point it will be possible to revert this patch. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h index b61b50bf68b1..cfa9cd87af14 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h @@ -228,11 +228,16 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) #define __tag_get(addr) 0 #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ +#ifdef __aarch64__ static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) { u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); } +#else +/* Unused in compat vdso */ +#define __tag_set(addr, tag) 0 +#endif /* * Physical vs virtual RAM address space conversion. These are -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 15:22 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:04PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > index b61b50bf68b1..cfa9cd87af14 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > @@ -228,11 +228,16 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) > #define __tag_get(addr) 0 > #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ > > +#ifdef __aarch64__ > static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) > { > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); > } > +#else > +/* Unused in compat vdso */ > +#define __tag_set(addr, tag) 0 > +#endif Do we actually need an #else block here? I think the #ifdef is sufficient, with a comment along the lines of "Do not attempt to compile when included in the compat vdso" (or pick some better wording). -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning @ 2019-09-26 15:22 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:04PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > index b61b50bf68b1..cfa9cd87af14 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > @@ -228,11 +228,16 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) > #define __tag_get(addr) 0 > #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ > > +#ifdef __aarch64__ > static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) > { > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); > } > +#else > +/* Unused in compat vdso */ > +#define __tag_set(addr, tag) 0 > +#endif Do we actually need an #else block here? I think the #ifdef is sufficient, with a comment along the lines of "Do not attempt to compile when included in the compat vdso" (or pick some better wording). -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx gettimeofday.S was originally removed with the introduction of the support for Unified vDSOs in arm64 and replaced with the C implementation. The file seems again present in the repository due to a side effect of rebase. Remove the file again. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S deleted file mode 100644 index e69de29bb2d1..000000000000 -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S @ 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will gettimeofday.S was originally removed with the introduction of the support for Unified vDSOs in arm64 and replaced with the C implementation. The file seems again present in the repository due to a side effect of rebase. Remove the file again. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S deleted file mode 100644 index e69de29bb2d1..000000000000 -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: vdso32: Address various issues 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 15:31 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > this patch series is meant to address the various compilation issues you > reported about arm64 vdso32. (This time for real I hope ;)) > > Please let me know if there is still something missing. Apart from the diff I posted and some nitpicks, the series looks fine to me. If you post an update, I'll ack it (and a tested-by). In addition to this series I'd still prefer to have my Kconfig option to disable the compat vDSO if something else fails in the future (at least until we complete the headers clean-up). But I'm fine with a default y and removing EXPERT. Thanks for the quick turnaround. -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: vdso32: Address various issues @ 2019-09-26 15:31 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > this patch series is meant to address the various compilation issues you > reported about arm64 vdso32. (This time for real I hope ;)) > > Please let me know if there is still something missing. Apart from the diff I posted and some nitpicks, the series looks fine to me. If you post an update, I'll ack it (and a tested-by). In addition to this series I'd still prefer to have my Kconfig option to disable the compat vDSO if something else fails in the future (at least until we complete the headers clean-up). But I'm fine with a default y and removing EXPERT. Thanks for the quick turnaround. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: vdso32: Address various issues 2019-09-26 15:31 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-26 20:29 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 4:31 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> this patch series is meant to address the various compilation issues you >> reported about arm64 vdso32. (This time for real I hope ;)) >> >> Please let me know if there is still something missing. > > Apart from the diff I posted and some nitpicks, the series looks fine to > me. If you post an update, I'll ack it (and a tested-by). > > In addition to this series I'd still prefer to have my Kconfig option to > disable the compat vDSO if something else fails in the future (at least > until we complete the headers clean-up). But I'm fine with a default y > and removing EXPERT. > It is fine by me, but may I ask to state in the commit message that the patch can be reverted once the we fix the headers issue? I would like to have symmetry in enabling vDSOs in between arm64 and compat once everything is fixed. > Thanks for the quick turnaround. > No problem, it is my responsibility to fix the vDSOs on arm64 and compat if something breaks ;) -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: vdso32: Address various issues @ 2019-09-26 20:29 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On 9/26/19 4:31 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> this patch series is meant to address the various compilation issues you >> reported about arm64 vdso32. (This time for real I hope ;)) >> >> Please let me know if there is still something missing. > > Apart from the diff I posted and some nitpicks, the series looks fine to > me. If you post an update, I'll ack it (and a tested-by). > > In addition to this series I'd still prefer to have my Kconfig option to > disable the compat vDSO if something else fails in the future (at least > until we complete the headers clean-up). But I'm fine with a default y > and removing EXPERT. > It is fine by me, but may I ask to state in the commit message that the patch can be reverted once the we fix the headers issue? I would like to have symmetry in enabling vDSOs in between arm64 and compat once everything is fixed. > Thanks for the quick turnaround. > No problem, it is my responsibility to fix the vDSOs on arm64 and compat if something breaks ;) -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 0/5]arm64: vdso32: Address various issues 2019-09-20 14:27 Problems with arm64 compat vdso Will Deacon @ 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx Hi Will, this patch series is meant to address the various compilation issues you reported about arm64 vdso32. Please let me know if there is still something missing. Thanks, Vincenzo Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> --- v3: - Exposed COMPATCC - Addressed Review Comments v2: - Fixed binutils detection - Addressed review comments Vincenzo Frascino (5): arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S arm64: vdso32: Remove jump label config option in Makefile arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- arch/arm64/Makefile | 18 +++++------------- arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 3 +++ arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S | 0 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 14 +++++++++----- 6 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 0/5]arm64: vdso32: Address various issues @ 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will Hi Will, this patch series is meant to address the various compilation issues you reported about arm64 vdso32. Please let me know if there is still something missing. Thanks, Vincenzo Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> --- v3: - Exposed COMPATCC - Addressed Review Comments v2: - Fixed binutils detection - Addressed review comments Vincenzo Frascino (5): arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S arm64: vdso32: Remove jump label config option in Makefile arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- arch/arm64/Makefile | 18 +++++------------- arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 3 +++ arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S | 0 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 14 +++++++++----- 6 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx As reported by Will Deacon the .config file and the generated include/config/auto.conf can end up out of sync after a set of commands since CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO is not updated correctly. The sequence can be reproduced as follows: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig [...] $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- Which results in: arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built even though the compat vDSO has been built: $ file arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so: ELF 32-bit LSB pie executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=c67f6c786f2d2d6f86c71f708595594aa25247f6, stripped A similar case that involves changing the configuration parameter multiple times can be reconducted to the same family of problems. The reason behind it comes from the fact that the master Makefile includes that architecture Makefile twice, once before the syncconfig and one after. Since the synchronization of the files happens only upon syncconfig, the architecture Makefile included before this event does not see the change in configuration. As a consequence of this it is not possible to handle the cross compiler definitions inside the architecture Makefile. Address the problem removing CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO and moving the detection of the correct compiler into Kconfig via COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC. As a consequence of this it is not possible anymore to set the compat cross compiler from menuconfig but it requires to be exported via command line. E.g.: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=arm-linux-gnueabihf Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- arch/arm64/Makefile | 18 +++++------------- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 2 -- 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index 37c610963eee..0e5beb928af5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND select HAVE_PCI @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS default 0xffffffffffffffff +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") + source "arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms" menu "Kernel Features" diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile index 84a3d502c5a5..dfa6a5cb99e4 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile @@ -53,20 +53,12 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) endif endif +COMPATCC ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc +export COMPATCC + ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) - - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) - else - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 - endif + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 endif KBUILD_CFLAGS += -mgeneral-regs-only $(lseinstr) $(brokengasinst) \ diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 1fba0776ed40..19e0d3115ffe 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -8,8 +8,6 @@ ARCH_REL_TYPE_ABS := R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT|R_ARM_GLOB_DAT|R_ARM_ABS32 include $(srctree)/lib/vdso/Makefile -COMPATCC := $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc - # Same as cc-*option, but using COMPATCC instead of CC cc32-option = $(call try-run,\ $(COMPATCC) $(1) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will As reported by Will Deacon the .config file and the generated include/config/auto.conf can end up out of sync after a set of commands since CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO is not updated correctly. The sequence can be reproduced as follows: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig [...] $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- Which results in: arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built even though the compat vDSO has been built: $ file arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so: ELF 32-bit LSB pie executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=c67f6c786f2d2d6f86c71f708595594aa25247f6, stripped A similar case that involves changing the configuration parameter multiple times can be reconducted to the same family of problems. The reason behind it comes from the fact that the master Makefile includes that architecture Makefile twice, once before the syncconfig and one after. Since the synchronization of the files happens only upon syncconfig, the architecture Makefile included before this event does not see the change in configuration. As a consequence of this it is not possible to handle the cross compiler definitions inside the architecture Makefile. Address the problem removing CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO and moving the detection of the correct compiler into Kconfig via COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC. As a consequence of this it is not possible anymore to set the compat cross compiler from menuconfig but it requires to be exported via command line. E.g.: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=arm-linux-gnueabihf Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- arch/arm64/Makefile | 18 +++++------------- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 2 -- 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig index 37c610963eee..0e5beb928af5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND select HAVE_PCI @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS default 0xffffffffffffffff +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") + source "arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms" menu "Kernel Features" diff --git a/arch/arm64/Makefile b/arch/arm64/Makefile index 84a3d502c5a5..dfa6a5cb99e4 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile @@ -53,20 +53,12 @@ $(warning Detected assembler with broken .inst; disassembly will be unreliable) endif endif +COMPATCC ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc +export COMPATCC + ifeq ($(CONFIG_GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO), y) - CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO:"%"=%) - - ifeq ($(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG), y) - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is clang, the compat vDSO will not be built) - else ifeq ($(strip $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)),) - $(warning CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat vDSO will not be built) - else ifeq ($(shell which $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc 2> /dev/null),) - $(error $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc not found, check CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT) - else - export CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT - export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y - compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 - endif + export CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO := y + compat_vdso := -DCONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=1 endif KBUILD_CFLAGS += -mgeneral-regs-only $(lseinstr) $(brokengasinst) \ diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 1fba0776ed40..19e0d3115ffe 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -8,8 +8,6 @@ ARCH_REL_TYPE_ABS := R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT|R_ARM_GLOB_DAT|R_ARM_ABS32 include $(srctree)/lib/vdso/Makefile -COMPATCC := $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc - # Same as cc-*option, but using COMPATCC instead of CC cc32-option = $(call try-run,\ $(COMPATCC) $(1) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-27 9:24 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-27 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > Address the problem removing CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO and moving And this config does need to go in a subsequent patch. > the detection of the correct compiler into Kconfig via COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC. Nitpick: it's COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC now. > As a consequence of this it is not possible anymore to set the compat > cross compiler from menuconfig but it requires to be exported via > command line. > > E.g.: > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=arm-linux-gnueabihf Another nitpick, add a '-' at the end of 'gnueabihf'. Otherwise: Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-09-27 9:24 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-27 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > Address the problem removing CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO and moving And this config does need to go in a subsequent patch. > the detection of the correct compiler into Kconfig via COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC. Nitpick: it's COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC now. > As a consequence of this it is not possible anymore to set the compat > cross compiler from menuconfig but it requires to be exported via > command line. > > E.g.: > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=arm-linux-gnueabihf Another nitpick, add a '-' at the end of 'gnueabihf'. Otherwise: Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 13:14 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > As reported by Will Deacon the .config file and the generated > include/config/auto.conf can end up out of sync after a set of > commands since CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO is not updated > correctly. > > The sequence can be reproduced as follows: > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig > [...] > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig > [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > > Which results in: > > arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, > the compat vDSO will not be built > > even though the compat vDSO has been built: > > $ file arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so: ELF 32-bit LSB pie executable, ARM, > EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, > BuildID[sha1]=c67f6c786f2d2d6f86c71f708595594aa25247f6, stripped > > A similar case that involves changing the configuration parameter multiple > times can be reconducted to the same family of problems. > > The reason behind it comes from the fact that the master Makefile includes > that architecture Makefile twice, once before the syncconfig and one after. > Since the synchronization of the files happens only upon syncconfig, the > architecture Makefile included before this event does not see the change in > configuration. > > As a consequence of this it is not possible to handle the cross compiler > definitions inside the architecture Makefile. > > Address the problem removing CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO and moving > the detection of the correct compiler into Kconfig via COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC. > > As a consequence of this it is not possible anymore to set the compat > cross compiler from menuconfig but it requires to be exported via > command line. > > E.g.: > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=arm-linux-gnueabihf > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- > arch/arm64/Makefile | 18 +++++------------- > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 2 -- > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > index 37c610963eee..0e5beb928af5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 > select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER > select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL > select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY > - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) > + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) > select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ > select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND > select HAVE_PCI > @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET > default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS > default 0xffffffffffffffff > > +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. I'd prefer to drop this check altogether. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 13:14 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > As reported by Will Deacon the .config file and the generated > include/config/auto.conf can end up out of sync after a set of > commands since CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO is not updated > correctly. > > The sequence can be reproduced as follows: > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- defconfig > [...] > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- menuconfig > [set CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO="arm-linux-gnueabihf-"] > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > > Which results in: > > arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, > the compat vDSO will not be built > > even though the compat vDSO has been built: > > $ file arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/vdso.so: ELF 32-bit LSB pie executable, ARM, > EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, > BuildID[sha1]=c67f6c786f2d2d6f86c71f708595594aa25247f6, stripped > > A similar case that involves changing the configuration parameter multiple > times can be reconducted to the same family of problems. > > The reason behind it comes from the fact that the master Makefile includes > that architecture Makefile twice, once before the syncconfig and one after. > Since the synchronization of the files happens only upon syncconfig, the > architecture Makefile included before this event does not see the change in > configuration. > > As a consequence of this it is not possible to handle the cross compiler > definitions inside the architecture Makefile. > > Address the problem removing CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO and moving > the detection of the correct compiler into Kconfig via COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC. > > As a consequence of this it is not possible anymore to set the compat > cross compiler from menuconfig but it requires to be exported via > command line. > > E.g.: > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=arm-linux-gnueabihf > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 ++++- > arch/arm64/Makefile | 18 +++++------------- > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 2 -- > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > index 37c610963eee..0e5beb928af5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 > select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER > select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL > select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY > - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) > + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) > select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ > select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND > select HAVE_PCI > @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET > default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS > default 0xffffffffffffffff > > +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. I'd prefer to drop this check altogether. Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-10-01 13:14 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 13:27 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-10-01 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: Vincenzo Frascino, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, tglx On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > index 37c610963eee..0e5beb928af5 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 > > select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER > > select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL > > select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY > > - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) > > + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) > > select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ > > select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND > > select HAVE_PCI > > @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET > > default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS > > default 0xffffffffffffffff > > > > +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > > + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") > > I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they > won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If > somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as > if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. Not sure what happens if we pass an aarch64 compiler. Can we end up with a 64-bit compat vDSO? -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 13:27 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-10-01 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, Vincenzo Frascino, linux-arm-kernel On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > index 37c610963eee..0e5beb928af5 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 > > select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER > > select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL > > select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY > > - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) > > + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) > > select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ > > select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND > > select HAVE_PCI > > @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET > > default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS > > default 0xffffffffffffffff > > > > +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > > + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") > > I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they > won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If > somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as > if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. Not sure what happens if we pass an aarch64 compiler. Can we end up with a 64-bit compat vDSO? -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-10-01 13:27 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2019-10-01 14:20 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, tglx On 10/1/19 2:27 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> index 37c610963eee..0e5beb928af5 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 >>> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER >>> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL >>> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY >>> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) >>> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) >>> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ >>> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND >>> select HAVE_PCI >>> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET >>> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS >>> default 0xffffffffffffffff >>> >>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC >>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") >> >> I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they >> won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If >> somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as >> if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. > > Not sure what happens if we pass an aarch64 compiler. Can we end up with > a 64-bit compat vDSO? > I agree with Catalin here. The problem is not only when you pass and aarch64 toolchain but even an x86 and so on. If the problem is related to armv7- we can change the rule as "arm.*-gcc" which should detect them as well. Do you know what is the triple that an armv7- toolchain prints? -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 14:20 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon Cc: tglx, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, ard.biesheuvel On 10/1/19 2:27 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> index 37c610963eee..0e5beb928af5 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 >>> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER >>> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL >>> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY >>> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) >>> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) >>> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ >>> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND >>> select HAVE_PCI >>> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET >>> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS >>> default 0xffffffffffffffff >>> >>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC >>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") >> >> I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they >> won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If >> somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as >> if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. > > Not sure what happens if we pass an aarch64 compiler. Can we end up with > a 64-bit compat vDSO? > I agree with Catalin here. The problem is not only when you pass and aarch64 toolchain but even an x86 and so on. If the problem is related to armv7- we can change the rule as "arm.*-gcc" which should detect them as well. Do you know what is the triple that an armv7- toolchain prints? -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-10-01 14:20 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 14:20 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, tglx On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:20:35PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 10/1/19 2:27 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > >>> index 37c610963eee..0e5beb928af5 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > >>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 > >>> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER > >>> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL > >>> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY > >>> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) > >>> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) > >>> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ > >>> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND > >>> select HAVE_PCI > >>> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET > >>> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS > >>> default 0xffffffffffffffff > >>> > >>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > >>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") > >> > >> I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they > >> won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If > >> somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as > >> if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. > > > > Not sure what happens if we pass an aarch64 compiler. Can we end up with > > a 64-bit compat vDSO? > > > > I agree with Catalin here. The problem is not only when you pass and aarch64 > toolchain but even an x86 and so on. I disagree. What happens if you do: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-linux-gnu- on your x86 box? > If the problem is related to armv7- we can change the rule as "arm.*-gcc" which > should detect them as well. Do you know what is the triple that an armv7- > toolchain prints? 'fraid not, since I don't have one to hand. I think you'd end up matching arm*-gcc, which is pretty broad. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 14:20 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, Catalin Marinas, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, linux-arm-kernel On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:20:35PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 10/1/19 2:27 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > >>> index 37c610963eee..0e5beb928af5 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > >>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 > >>> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER > >>> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL > >>> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY > >>> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) > >>> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) > >>> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ > >>> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND > >>> select HAVE_PCI > >>> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET > >>> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS > >>> default 0xffffffffffffffff > >>> > >>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > >>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") > >> > >> I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they > >> won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If > >> somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as > >> if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. > > > > Not sure what happens if we pass an aarch64 compiler. Can we end up with > > a 64-bit compat vDSO? > > > > I agree with Catalin here. The problem is not only when you pass and aarch64 > toolchain but even an x86 and so on. I disagree. What happens if you do: $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-linux-gnu- on your x86 box? > If the problem is related to armv7- we can change the rule as "arm.*-gcc" which > should detect them as well. Do you know what is the triple that an armv7- > toolchain prints? 'fraid not, since I don't have one to hand. I think you'd end up matching arm*-gcc, which is pretty broad. Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-10-01 14:20 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 14:37 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, tglx On 10/1/19 3:20 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:20:35PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> On 10/1/19 2:27 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>>>> index 37c610963eee..0e5beb928af5 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>>>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 >>>>> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER >>>>> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL >>>>> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY >>>>> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) >>>>> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) >>>>> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ >>>>> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND >>>>> select HAVE_PCI >>>>> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET >>>>> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS >>>>> default 0xffffffffffffffff >>>>> >>>>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC >>>>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") >>>> >>>> I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they >>>> won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If >>>> somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as >>>> if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. >>> >>> Not sure what happens if we pass an aarch64 compiler. Can we end up with >>> a 64-bit compat vDSO? >>> >> >> I agree with Catalin here. The problem is not only when you pass and aarch64 >> toolchain but even an x86 and so on. > > I disagree. What happens if you do: > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-linux-gnu- > > on your x86 box? > The kernel compilation breaks as follows: x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-mlittle-endian’; did you mean ‘-fconvert=little-endian’? /data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux/scripts/Makefile.build:265: recipe for target 'scripts/mod/empty.o' failed make[2]: *** [scripts/mod/empty.o] Error 1 /data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux/Makefile:1128: recipe for target 'prepare0' failed make[1]: *** [prepare0] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory '/data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux-out' Makefile:179: recipe for target 'sub-make' failed make: *** [sub-make] Error 2 Similar issue in the compat vdso library compilation if I do (without the check): $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=x86_64-linux-gnu- With this check the compilation completes correctly but the compat vdso does not get built (unless my environment is playing me tricks ;) ). >> If the problem is related to armv7- we can change the rule as "arm.*-gcc" which >> should detect them as well. Do you know what is the triple that an armv7- >> toolchain prints? > > 'fraid not, since I don't have one to hand. I think you'd end up matching > arm*-gcc, which is pretty broad. > If we all agree I can extend this rule then. > Will > -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 14:37 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: ard.biesheuvel, Catalin Marinas, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, linux-arm-kernel On 10/1/19 3:20 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:20:35PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> On 10/1/19 2:27 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>>>> index 37c610963eee..0e5beb928af5 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig >>>>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config ARM64 >>>>> select GENERIC_STRNLEN_USER >>>>> select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL >>>>> select GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY >>>>> - select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT) >>>>> + select GENERIC_COMPAT_VDSO if (!CPU_BIG_ENDIAN && COMPAT && COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC) >>>>> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ >>>>> select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND >>>>> select HAVE_PCI >>>>> @@ -313,6 +313,9 @@ config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET >>>>> default 0xeffffff900000000 if ARM64_VA_BITS_36 && KASAN_SW_TAGS >>>>> default 0xffffffffffffffff >>>>> >>>>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC >>>>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") >>>> >>>> I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they >>>> won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If >>>> somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as >>>> if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. >>> >>> Not sure what happens if we pass an aarch64 compiler. Can we end up with >>> a 64-bit compat vDSO? >>> >> >> I agree with Catalin here. The problem is not only when you pass and aarch64 >> toolchain but even an x86 and so on. > > I disagree. What happens if you do: > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-linux-gnu- > > on your x86 box? > The kernel compilation breaks as follows: x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-mlittle-endian’; did you mean ‘-fconvert=little-endian’? /data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux/scripts/Makefile.build:265: recipe for target 'scripts/mod/empty.o' failed make[2]: *** [scripts/mod/empty.o] Error 1 /data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux/Makefile:1128: recipe for target 'prepare0' failed make[1]: *** [prepare0] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory '/data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux-out' Makefile:179: recipe for target 'sub-make' failed make: *** [sub-make] Error 2 Similar issue in the compat vdso library compilation if I do (without the check): $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=x86_64-linux-gnu- With this check the compilation completes correctly but the compat vdso does not get built (unless my environment is playing me tricks ;) ). >> If the problem is related to armv7- we can change the rule as "arm.*-gcc" which >> should detect them as well. Do you know what is the triple that an armv7- >> toolchain prints? > > 'fraid not, since I don't have one to hand. I think you'd end up matching > arm*-gcc, which is pretty broad. > If we all agree I can extend this rule then. > Will > -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-10-01 14:37 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 14:43 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, tglx On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:37:49PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 10/1/19 3:20 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:20:35PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > >> On 10/1/19 2:27 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > >>>>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > >>>>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") > >>>> > >>>> I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they > >>>> won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If > >>>> somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as > >>>> if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. > >>> > >>> Not sure what happens if we pass an aarch64 compiler. Can we end up with > >>> a 64-bit compat vDSO? > >>> > >> > >> I agree with Catalin here. The problem is not only when you pass and aarch64 > >> toolchain but even an x86 and so on. > > > > I disagree. What happens if you do: > > > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-linux-gnu- > > > > on your x86 box? > > > > The kernel compilation breaks as follows: > > x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-mlittle-endian’; > did you mean ‘-fconvert=little-endian’? > /data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux/scripts/Makefile.build:265: recipe for target > 'scripts/mod/empty.o' failed > make[2]: *** [scripts/mod/empty.o] Error 1 > /data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux/Makefile:1128: recipe for target 'prepare0' failed > make[1]: *** [prepare0] Error 2 > make[1]: Leaving directory '/data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux-out' > Makefile:179: recipe for target 'sub-make' failed > make: *** [sub-make] Error 2 > > Similar issue in the compat vdso library compilation if I do (without the check): > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=x86_64-linux-gnu- > > With this check the compilation completes correctly but the compat vdso does not > get built (unless my environment is playing me tricks ;) ). My point was that we don't attempt to sanitise the compiler passed via CROSS_COMPILE, so I don't think we should do anything special for COMPATCC either. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 14:43 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, Catalin Marinas, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, linux-arm-kernel On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:37:49PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > On 10/1/19 3:20 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:20:35PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > >> On 10/1/19 2:27 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > >>>>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > >>>>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") > >>>> > >>>> I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they > >>>> won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If > >>>> somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as > >>>> if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. > >>> > >>> Not sure what happens if we pass an aarch64 compiler. Can we end up with > >>> a 64-bit compat vDSO? > >>> > >> > >> I agree with Catalin here. The problem is not only when you pass and aarch64 > >> toolchain but even an x86 and so on. > > > > I disagree. What happens if you do: > > > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-linux-gnu- > > > > on your x86 box? > > > > The kernel compilation breaks as follows: > > x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-mlittle-endian’; > did you mean ‘-fconvert=little-endian’? > /data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux/scripts/Makefile.build:265: recipe for target > 'scripts/mod/empty.o' failed > make[2]: *** [scripts/mod/empty.o] Error 1 > /data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux/Makefile:1128: recipe for target 'prepare0' failed > make[1]: *** [prepare0] Error 2 > make[1]: Leaving directory '/data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux-out' > Makefile:179: recipe for target 'sub-make' failed > make: *** [sub-make] Error 2 > > Similar issue in the compat vdso library compilation if I do (without the check): > > $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=x86_64-linux-gnu- > > With this check the compilation completes correctly but the compat vdso does not > get built (unless my environment is playing me tricks ;) ). My point was that we don't attempt to sanitise the compiler passed via CROSS_COMPILE, so I don't think we should do anything special for COMPATCC either. Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-10-01 14:43 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 14:59 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, tglx On 10/1/19 3:43 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:37:49PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> On 10/1/19 3:20 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:20:35PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>>> On 10/1/19 2:27 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>>>>>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC >>>>>>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") >>>>>> >>>>>> I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they >>>>>> won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If >>>>>> somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as >>>>>> if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. >>>>> >>>>> Not sure what happens if we pass an aarch64 compiler. Can we end up with >>>>> a 64-bit compat vDSO? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with Catalin here. The problem is not only when you pass and aarch64 >>>> toolchain but even an x86 and so on. >>> >>> I disagree. What happens if you do: >>> >>> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-linux-gnu- >>> >>> on your x86 box? >>> >> >> The kernel compilation breaks as follows: >> >> x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-mlittle-endian’; >> did you mean ‘-fconvert=little-endian’? >> /data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux/scripts/Makefile.build:265: recipe for target >> 'scripts/mod/empty.o' failed >> make[2]: *** [scripts/mod/empty.o] Error 1 >> /data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux/Makefile:1128: recipe for target 'prepare0' failed >> make[1]: *** [prepare0] Error 2 >> make[1]: Leaving directory '/data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux-out' >> Makefile:179: recipe for target 'sub-make' failed >> make: *** [sub-make] Error 2 >> >> Similar issue in the compat vdso library compilation if I do (without the check): >> >> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- >> CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=x86_64-linux-gnu- >> >> With this check the compilation completes correctly but the compat vdso does not >> get built (unless my environment is playing me tricks ;) ). > > My point was that we don't attempt to sanitise the compiler passed via > CROSS_COMPILE, so I don't think we should do anything special for COMPATCC > either. > I agree on this, but the point I was trying to make is that the kernel should still be able to build even if the compiler for compat vdso is not correct. I do not have a strong opinion though. > Will > -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 14:59 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: ard.biesheuvel, Catalin Marinas, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, linux-arm-kernel On 10/1/19 3:43 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:37:49PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> On 10/1/19 3:20 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:20:35PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>>> On 10/1/19 2:27 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 02:14:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>>>>>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC >>>>>>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") >>>>>> >>>>>> I've seen toolchains where the first part of the tuple is "armv7-", so they >>>>>> won't get detected here. However, do we really need to detect this? If >>>>>> somebody passes a duff compiler, then the build will fail in the same way as >>>>>> if they passed it to CROSS_COMPILE=. >>>>> >>>>> Not sure what happens if we pass an aarch64 compiler. Can we end up with >>>>> a 64-bit compat vDSO? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with Catalin here. The problem is not only when you pass and aarch64 >>>> toolchain but even an x86 and so on. >>> >>> I disagree. What happens if you do: >>> >>> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-linux-gnu- >>> >>> on your x86 box? >>> >> >> The kernel compilation breaks as follows: >> >> x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-mlittle-endian’; >> did you mean ‘-fconvert=little-endian’? >> /data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux/scripts/Makefile.build:265: recipe for target >> 'scripts/mod/empty.o' failed >> make[2]: *** [scripts/mod/empty.o] Error 1 >> /data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux/Makefile:1128: recipe for target 'prepare0' failed >> make[1]: *** [prepare0] Error 2 >> make[1]: Leaving directory '/data1/Projects/LinuxKernel/linux-out' >> Makefile:179: recipe for target 'sub-make' failed >> make: *** [sub-make] Error 2 >> >> Similar issue in the compat vdso library compilation if I do (without the check): >> >> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- >> CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT=x86_64-linux-gnu- >> >> With this check the compilation completes correctly but the compat vdso does not >> get built (unless my environment is playing me tricks ;) ). > > My point was that we don't attempt to sanitise the compiler passed via > CROSS_COMPILE, so I don't think we should do anything special for COMPATCC > either. > I agree on this, but the point I was trying to make is that the kernel should still be able to build even if the compiler for compat vdso is not correct. I do not have a strong opinion though. > Will > -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-10-01 14:43 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 15:30 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-10-01 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: Vincenzo Frascino, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, tglx On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:43:54PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > >>>>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > > >>>>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") [...] > My point was that we don't attempt to sanitise the compiler passed via > CROSS_COMPILE, so I don't think we should do anything special for COMPATCC > either. What I really want from kbuild with this patch is: 1. Not to warn me that I don't have a CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT set 2. Not to give me a compilation error if the makefile made up a COMPATCC that doesn't work Since we dropped the Kconfig option for the compat gcc prefix (which I didn't like anyway), COMPATCC is now initialised to (CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc. This means that it is valid compiler (and it's an aarch64 compiler on my machine). The COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC silently disables the compat vDSO for this case rather than giving me a build error if we don't have such checks. In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we cleaned up the headers. So, I think the best option for the time being is to check that the compat compiler is an "arm*-gcc", otherwise disable the compat vDSO. -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 15:30 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-10-01 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, Vincenzo Frascino, linux-arm-kernel On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:43:54PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > >>>>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > > >>>>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") [...] > My point was that we don't attempt to sanitise the compiler passed via > CROSS_COMPILE, so I don't think we should do anything special for COMPATCC > either. What I really want from kbuild with this patch is: 1. Not to warn me that I don't have a CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT set 2. Not to give me a compilation error if the makefile made up a COMPATCC that doesn't work Since we dropped the Kconfig option for the compat gcc prefix (which I didn't like anyway), COMPATCC is now initialised to (CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc. This means that it is valid compiler (and it's an aarch64 compiler on my machine). The COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC silently disables the compat vDSO for this case rather than giving me a build error if we don't have such checks. In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we cleaned up the headers. So, I think the best option for the time being is to check that the compat compiler is an "arm*-gcc", otherwise disable the compat vDSO. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-10-01 15:30 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2019-10-01 16:46 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Vincenzo Frascino, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, tglx On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:43:54PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > > >>>>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > > > >>>>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") > [...] > > My point was that we don't attempt to sanitise the compiler passed via > > CROSS_COMPILE, so I don't think we should do anything special for COMPATCC > > either. > > What I really want from kbuild with this patch is: > > 1. Not to warn me that I don't have a CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT set > > 2. Not to give me a compilation error if the makefile made up a COMPATCC > that doesn't work > > Since we dropped the Kconfig option for the compat gcc prefix (which I > didn't like anyway), COMPATCC is now initialised to > (CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc. This means that it is valid compiler (and > it's an aarch64 compiler on my machine). The COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > silently disables the compat vDSO for this case rather than giving me a > build error if we don't have such checks. > > In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be > set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler > binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we > cleaned up the headers. But we'll still need it even with clang so that the relevant triple can be passed to the --target option. The top-level Makefile already does this: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Makefile#n544 so I think we should do the same thing for the compat vdso as well, which would allow us to remove this complexity by requiring that CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT identifies the cross-compiler to use in exactly the same way as CROSS_COMPILE does. Am I missing something here? Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 16:46 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, Vincenzo Frascino, linux-arm-kernel On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:43:54PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:38PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > > >>>>> +config COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > > > >>>>> + def_bool $(success,$(COMPATCC) --version | head -n 1 | grep -q "arm-.*-gcc") > [...] > > My point was that we don't attempt to sanitise the compiler passed via > > CROSS_COMPILE, so I don't think we should do anything special for COMPATCC > > either. > > What I really want from kbuild with this patch is: > > 1. Not to warn me that I don't have a CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT set > > 2. Not to give me a compilation error if the makefile made up a COMPATCC > that doesn't work > > Since we dropped the Kconfig option for the compat gcc prefix (which I > didn't like anyway), COMPATCC is now initialised to > (CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc. This means that it is valid compiler (and > it's an aarch64 compiler on my machine). The COMPATCC_IS_ARM_GCC > silently disables the compat vDSO for this case rather than giving me a > build error if we don't have such checks. > > In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be > set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler > binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we > cleaned up the headers. But we'll still need it even with clang so that the relevant triple can be passed to the --target option. The top-level Makefile already does this: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Makefile#n544 so I think we should do the same thing for the compat vdso as well, which would allow us to remove this complexity by requiring that CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT identifies the cross-compiler to use in exactly the same way as CROSS_COMPILE does. Am I missing something here? Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-10-01 16:46 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 16:59 ` Nick Desaulniers -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Nick Desaulniers @ 2019-10-01 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: Catalin Marinas, Vincenzo Frascino, Linux ARM, LKML, Ard Biesheuvel, Thomas Gleixner On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:47 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be > > set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler > > binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we > > cleaned up the headers. > > But we'll still need it even with clang so that the relevant triple can be > passed to the --target option. The top-level Makefile already does this: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Makefile#n544 That's not pulling the cross compiler out of a *config* (as this patch is proposing); rather from an env var. > > so I think we should do the same thing for the compat vdso as well, which > would allow us to remove this complexity by requiring that > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT identifies the cross-compiler to use in exactly the > same way as CROSS_COMPILE does. > > Am I missing something here? I think the second paragraph you wrote shows we're all in agreement, but I suspect you may be conflating *how* the toplevel Makefile knows we're doing a cross compile. It doesn't read a config, this patch would make it so a cross compiler is specified via config, Catalin asked "please no," I agree with Catalin (and I suspect you do too). -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 16:59 ` Nick Desaulniers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Nick Desaulniers @ 2019-10-01 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, Catalin Marinas, LKML, Thomas Gleixner, Vincenzo Frascino, Linux ARM On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:47 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be > > set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler > > binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we > > cleaned up the headers. > > But we'll still need it even with clang so that the relevant triple can be > passed to the --target option. The top-level Makefile already does this: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Makefile#n544 That's not pulling the cross compiler out of a *config* (as this patch is proposing); rather from an env var. > > so I think we should do the same thing for the compat vdso as well, which > would allow us to remove this complexity by requiring that > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT identifies the cross-compiler to use in exactly the > same way as CROSS_COMPILE does. > > Am I missing something here? I think the second paragraph you wrote shows we're all in agreement, but I suspect you may be conflating *how* the toplevel Makefile knows we're doing a cross compile. It doesn't read a config, this patch would make it so a cross compiler is specified via config, Catalin asked "please no," I agree with Catalin (and I suspect you do too). -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-10-01 16:59 ` Nick Desaulniers @ 2019-10-01 17:07 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: Catalin Marinas, Vincenzo Frascino, Linux ARM, LKML, Ard Biesheuvel, Thomas Gleixner On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:59:43AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:47 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be > > > set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler > > > binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we > > > cleaned up the headers. > > > > But we'll still need it even with clang so that the relevant triple can be > > passed to the --target option. The top-level Makefile already does this: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Makefile#n544 > > That's not pulling the cross compiler out of a *config* (as this patch > is proposing); rather from an env var. CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is the environment variable, right? If not, then I have my terminology mixed up. > > so I think we should do the same thing for the compat vdso as well, which > > would allow us to remove this complexity by requiring that > > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT identifies the cross-compiler to use in exactly the > > same way as CROSS_COMPILE does. > > > > Am I missing something here? > > I think the second paragraph you wrote shows we're all in agreement, > but I suspect you may be conflating *how* the toplevel Makefile knows > we're doing a cross compile. It doesn't read a config, this patch > would make it so a cross compiler is specified via config, Catalin > asked "please no," I agree with Catalin (and I suspect you do too). Yes, I'm saying let's have an environment variable only and drop the CONFIG stuff completely. I think this means that the environment variable must always be specified if you want the compat vDSO, but I don't see that as a problem. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 17:07 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, Catalin Marinas, LKML, Thomas Gleixner, Vincenzo Frascino, Linux ARM On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:59:43AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:47 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be > > > set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler > > > binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we > > > cleaned up the headers. > > > > But we'll still need it even with clang so that the relevant triple can be > > passed to the --target option. The top-level Makefile already does this: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Makefile#n544 > > That's not pulling the cross compiler out of a *config* (as this patch > is proposing); rather from an env var. CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is the environment variable, right? If not, then I have my terminology mixed up. > > so I think we should do the same thing for the compat vdso as well, which > > would allow us to remove this complexity by requiring that > > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT identifies the cross-compiler to use in exactly the > > same way as CROSS_COMPILE does. > > > > Am I missing something here? > > I think the second paragraph you wrote shows we're all in agreement, > but I suspect you may be conflating *how* the toplevel Makefile knows > we're doing a cross compile. It doesn't read a config, this patch > would make it so a cross compiler is specified via config, Catalin > asked "please no," I agree with Catalin (and I suspect you do too). Yes, I'm saying let's have an environment variable only and drop the CONFIG stuff completely. I think this means that the environment variable must always be specified if you want the compat vDSO, but I don't see that as a problem. Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-10-01 17:07 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 17:12 ` Nick Desaulniers -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Nick Desaulniers @ 2019-10-01 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: Catalin Marinas, Vincenzo Frascino, Linux ARM, LKML, Ard Biesheuvel, Thomas Gleixner On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:08 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:59:43AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:47 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be > > > > set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler > > > > binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we > > > > cleaned up the headers. > > > > > > But we'll still need it even with clang so that the relevant triple can be > > > passed to the --target option. The top-level Makefile already does this: > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Makefile#n544 > > > > That's not pulling the cross compiler out of a *config* (as this patch > > is proposing); rather from an env var. > > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is the environment variable, right? If not, then I have > my terminology mixed up. Ah, sorry, I'm the one misreading the patch. I thought the commit message was showing what the new process would be. I see now that it's describing the issue pre-patch. My mistake. > > > > so I think we should do the same thing for the compat vdso as well, which > > > would allow us to remove this complexity by requiring that > > > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT identifies the cross-compiler to use in exactly the > > > same way as CROSS_COMPILE does. > > > > > > Am I missing something here? > > > > I think the second paragraph you wrote shows we're all in agreement, > > but I suspect you may be conflating *how* the toplevel Makefile knows > > we're doing a cross compile. It doesn't read a config, this patch > > would make it so a cross compiler is specified via config, Catalin > > asked "please no," I agree with Catalin (and I suspect you do too). > > Yes, I'm saying let's have an environment variable only and drop the > CONFIG stuff completely. I think this means that the environment variable > must always be specified if you want the compat vDSO, but I don't see that > as a problem. > > Will -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 17:12 ` Nick Desaulniers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Nick Desaulniers @ 2019-10-01 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, Catalin Marinas, LKML, Thomas Gleixner, Vincenzo Frascino, Linux ARM On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:08 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:59:43AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:47 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be > > > > set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler > > > > binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we > > > > cleaned up the headers. > > > > > > But we'll still need it even with clang so that the relevant triple can be > > > passed to the --target option. The top-level Makefile already does this: > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Makefile#n544 > > > > That's not pulling the cross compiler out of a *config* (as this patch > > is proposing); rather from an env var. > > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is the environment variable, right? If not, then I have > my terminology mixed up. Ah, sorry, I'm the one misreading the patch. I thought the commit message was showing what the new process would be. I see now that it's describing the issue pre-patch. My mistake. > > > > so I think we should do the same thing for the compat vdso as well, which > > > would allow us to remove this complexity by requiring that > > > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT identifies the cross-compiler to use in exactly the > > > same way as CROSS_COMPILE does. > > > > > > Am I missing something here? > > > > I think the second paragraph you wrote shows we're all in agreement, > > but I suspect you may be conflating *how* the toplevel Makefile knows > > we're doing a cross compile. It doesn't read a config, this patch > > would make it so a cross compiler is specified via config, Catalin > > asked "please no," I agree with Catalin (and I suspect you do too). > > Yes, I'm saying let's have an environment variable only and drop the > CONFIG stuff completely. I think this means that the environment variable > must always be specified if you want the compat vDSO, but I don't see that > as a problem. > > Will -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC 2019-10-01 17:12 ` Nick Desaulniers @ 2019-10-01 17:14 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: Catalin Marinas, Vincenzo Frascino, Linux ARM, LKML, Ard Biesheuvel, Thomas Gleixner On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 10:12:59AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:08 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:59:43AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:47 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > > In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be > > > > > set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler > > > > > binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we > > > > > cleaned up the headers. > > > > > > > > But we'll still need it even with clang so that the relevant triple can be > > > > passed to the --target option. The top-level Makefile already does this: > > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Makefile#n544 > > > > > > That's not pulling the cross compiler out of a *config* (as this patch > > > is proposing); rather from an env var. > > > > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is the environment variable, right? If not, then I have > > my terminology mixed up. > > Ah, sorry, I'm the one misreading the patch. I thought the commit > message was showing what the new process would be. I see now that it's > describing the issue pre-patch. My mistake. Thanks. Thought I was losing the plot for a moment there! Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC @ 2019-10-01 17:14 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, Catalin Marinas, LKML, Thomas Gleixner, Vincenzo Frascino, Linux ARM On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 10:12:59AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:08 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:59:43AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:47 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > > In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be > > > > > set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler > > > > > binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we > > > > > cleaned up the headers. > > > > > > > > But we'll still need it even with clang so that the relevant triple can be > > > > passed to the --target option. The top-level Makefile already does this: > > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Makefile#n544 > > > > > > That's not pulling the cross compiler out of a *config* (as this patch > > > is proposing); rather from an env var. > > > > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is the environment variable, right? If not, then I have > > my terminology mixed up. > > Ah, sorry, I'm the one misreading the patch. I thought the commit > message was showing what the new process would be. I see now that it's > describing the issue pre-patch. My mistake. Thanks. Thought I was losing the plot for a moment there! Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the vdso32 library. Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 19e0d3115ffe..77aa61340374 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ cc32-disable-warning = $(call try-run,\ $(COMPATCC) -W$(strip $(1)) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) cc32-ldoption = $(call try-run,\ $(COMPATCC) $(1) -nostdlib -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) +cc32-as-instr = $(call try-run,\ + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(VDSO_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) # We cannot use the global flags to compile the vDSO files, the main reason # being that the 32-bit compiler may be older than the main (64-bit) compiler @@ -53,6 +55,7 @@ endif VDSO_CAFLAGS += -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING + # Try to compile for ARMv8. If the compiler is too old and doesn't support it, # fall back to v7. There is no easy way to check for what architecture the code # is being compiled, so define a macro specifying that (see arch/arm/Makefile). @@ -89,6 +92,12 @@ VDSO_CFLAGS += -Wno-int-to-pointer-cast VDSO_AFLAGS := $(VDSO_CAFLAGS) VDSO_AFLAGS += -D__ASSEMBLY__ +# Check for binutils support for dmb ishld +dmbinstr := $(call cc32-as-instr,dmb ishld,-DCONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD=1) + +VDSO_CFLAGS += $(dmbinstr) +VDSO_AFLAGS += $(dmbinstr) + VDSO_LDFLAGS := $(VDSO_CPPFLAGS) # From arm vDSO Makefile VDSO_LDFLAGS += -Wl,-Bsymbolic -Wl,--no-undefined -Wl,-soname=linux-vdso.so.1 -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the vdso32 library. Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 19e0d3115ffe..77aa61340374 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ cc32-disable-warning = $(call try-run,\ $(COMPATCC) -W$(strip $(1)) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) cc32-ldoption = $(call try-run,\ $(COMPATCC) $(1) -nostdlib -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) +cc32-as-instr = $(call try-run,\ + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(VDSO_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) # We cannot use the global flags to compile the vDSO files, the main reason # being that the 32-bit compiler may be older than the main (64-bit) compiler @@ -53,6 +55,7 @@ endif VDSO_CAFLAGS += -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-stack-protector VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING + # Try to compile for ARMv8. If the compiler is too old and doesn't support it, # fall back to v7. There is no easy way to check for what architecture the code # is being compiled, so define a macro specifying that (see arch/arm/Makefile). @@ -89,6 +92,12 @@ VDSO_CFLAGS += -Wno-int-to-pointer-cast VDSO_AFLAGS := $(VDSO_CAFLAGS) VDSO_AFLAGS += -D__ASSEMBLY__ +# Check for binutils support for dmb ishld +dmbinstr := $(call cc32-as-instr,dmb ishld,-DCONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD=1) + +VDSO_CFLAGS += $(dmbinstr) +VDSO_AFLAGS += $(dmbinstr) + VDSO_LDFLAGS := $(VDSO_CPPFLAGS) # From arm vDSO Makefile VDSO_LDFLAGS += -Wl,-Bsymbolic -Wl,--no-undefined -Wl,-soname=linux-vdso.so.1 -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-27 9:25 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-27 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:39PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not > support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the > vdso32 library. > > Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those > instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-09-27 9:25 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-27 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:39PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not > support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the > vdso32 library. > > Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those > instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 13:26 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:39PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not > support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the > vdso32 library. > > Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those > instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ > > #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") > > -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 > +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) > #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) > #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) > #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > index 19e0d3115ffe..77aa61340374 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ cc32-disable-warning = $(call try-run,\ > $(COMPATCC) -W$(strip $(1)) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) > cc32-ldoption = $(call try-run,\ > $(COMPATCC) $(1) -nostdlib -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) > +cc32-as-instr = $(call try-run,\ > + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(VDSO_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) It's a shame that we have to duplicate the logic from scripts/Kbuild.include here. Is there a way to reuse those helpers by temporarily overriding things like CC and KBUILD_AFLAGS? If not, no bother, but thought I'd better ask. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-10-01 13:26 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:39PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not > support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the > vdso32 library. > > Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those > instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ > > #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") > > -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 > +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) > #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) > #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) > #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > index 19e0d3115ffe..77aa61340374 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile > @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ cc32-disable-warning = $(call try-run,\ > $(COMPATCC) -W$(strip $(1)) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) > cc32-ldoption = $(call try-run,\ > $(COMPATCC) $(1) -nostdlib -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) > +cc32-as-instr = $(call try-run,\ > + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(VDSO_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) It's a shame that we have to duplicate the logic from scripts/Kbuild.include here. Is there a way to reuse those helpers by temporarily overriding things like CC and KBUILD_AFLAGS? If not, no bother, but thought I'd better ask. Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld 2019-10-01 13:26 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 14:23 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, tglx On 10/1/19 2:26 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:39PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not >> support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the >> vdso32 library. >> >> Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those >> instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. >> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> >> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- >> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h >> index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h >> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ >> >> #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") >> >> -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 >> +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) >> #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) >> #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) >> #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile >> index 19e0d3115ffe..77aa61340374 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile >> @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ cc32-disable-warning = $(call try-run,\ >> $(COMPATCC) -W$(strip $(1)) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) >> cc32-ldoption = $(call try-run,\ >> $(COMPATCC) $(1) -nostdlib -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) >> +cc32-as-instr = $(call try-run,\ >> + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(VDSO_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) > > It's a shame that we have to duplicate the logic from scripts/Kbuild.include > here. Is there a way to reuse those helpers by temporarily overriding things > like CC and KBUILD_AFLAGS? If not, no bother, but thought I'd better ask. > I tried to define a rule in scripts/Kbuild.include at the beginning doing what you are saying but I could not end up with a working solution, hence I ended up with a dedicated one. > Will > -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld @ 2019-10-01 14:23 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, linux-arm-kernel On 10/1/19 2:26 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:39PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> As reported by Will Deacon, older versions of binutils that do not >> support certain types of memory barriers can cause build failure of the >> vdso32 library. >> >> Add a compilation time mechanism that detects if binutils supports those >> instructions and configure the kernel accordingly. >> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> >> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h | 2 +- >> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 9 +++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h >> index fb60a88b5ed4..3fd8fd6d8fc2 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vdso/compat_barrier.h >> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ >> >> #define dmb(option) __asm__ __volatile__ ("dmb " #option : : : "memory") >> >> -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 >> +#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 8 && defined(CONFIG_AS_DMB_ISHLD) >> #define aarch32_smp_mb() dmb(ish) >> #define aarch32_smp_rmb() dmb(ishld) >> #define aarch32_smp_wmb() dmb(ishst) >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile >> index 19e0d3115ffe..77aa61340374 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile >> @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ cc32-disable-warning = $(call try-run,\ >> $(COMPATCC) -W$(strip $(1)) -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) >> cc32-ldoption = $(call try-run,\ >> $(COMPATCC) $(1) -nostdlib -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) >> +cc32-as-instr = $(call try-run,\ >> + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(COMPATCC) $(VDSO_AFLAGS) -c -x assembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3)) > > It's a shame that we have to duplicate the logic from scripts/Kbuild.include > here. Is there a way to reuse those helpers by temporarily overriding things > like CC and KBUILD_AFLAGS? If not, no bother, but thought I'd better ask. > I tried to define a rule in scripts/Kbuild.include at the beginning doing what you are saying but I could not end up with a working solution, hence I ended up with a dedicated one. > Will > -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 3/5] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx As reported by Will Deacon the following compilation warning appears during the compilation of the vdso32: In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, from ./include/linux/time.h:6, from .../work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, from <command-line>:0: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); ^ In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); ^ This happens because few 64 bit compilation headers are included during the generation of vdso32. Fix the issue redefining the __tag_set function. Note: This fix is meant to be temporary, a more comprehensive solution based on the refactoring of the generic headers will be provided with a future patch set. At that point it will be possible to revert this patch. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h index b61b50bf68b1..c61b2eb50a3b 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h @@ -228,11 +228,14 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) #define __tag_get(addr) 0 #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ +#ifdef __aarch64__ +/* Do not attempt to compile this code with compat vdso */ static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) { u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); } +#endif /* * Physical vs virtual RAM address space conversion. These are -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 3/5] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning @ 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will As reported by Will Deacon the following compilation warning appears during the compilation of the vdso32: In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, from ./include/linux/time.h:6, from .../work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, from <command-line>:0: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); ^ In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); ^ This happens because few 64 bit compilation headers are included during the generation of vdso32. Fix the issue redefining the __tag_set function. Note: This fix is meant to be temporary, a more comprehensive solution based on the refactoring of the generic headers will be provided with a future patch set. At that point it will be possible to revert this patch. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h index b61b50bf68b1..c61b2eb50a3b 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h @@ -228,11 +228,14 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) #define __tag_get(addr) 0 #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ +#ifdef __aarch64__ +/* Do not attempt to compile this code with compat vdso */ static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) { u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); } +#endif /* * Physical vs virtual RAM address space conversion. These are -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-27 9:26 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-27 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:40PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > Note: This fix is meant to be temporary, a more comprehensive solution > based on the refactoring of the generic headers will be provided with a > future patch set. At that point it will be possible to revert this patch. With this note, I'm fine with the patch. Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning @ 2019-09-27 9:26 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-27 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:40PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > Note: This fix is meant to be temporary, a more comprehensive solution > based on the refactoring of the generic headers will be provided with a > future patch set. At that point it will be possible to revert this patch. With this note, I'm fine with the patch. Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 13:21 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:40PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > As reported by Will Deacon the following compilation warning appears > during the compilation of the vdso32: > > In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, > from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, > from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, > from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, > from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, > from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, > from ./include/linux/time.h:6, > from .../work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, > from <command-line>:0: > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to > integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > ^ > In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, > from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, > from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, > from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, > from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, > from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to > integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > ^ > > This happens because few 64 bit compilation headers are included during > the generation of vdso32. > > Fix the issue redefining the __tag_set function. > > Note: This fix is meant to be temporary, a more comprehensive solution > based on the refactoring of the generic headers will be provided with a > future patch set. At that point it will be possible to revert this patch. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > index b61b50bf68b1..c61b2eb50a3b 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > @@ -228,11 +228,14 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) > #define __tag_get(addr) 0 > #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ > > +#ifdef __aarch64__ > +/* Do not attempt to compile this code with compat vdso */ > static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) > { > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); > } > +#endif Sorry, but I'm not taking this. I know you're trying to fix the issues I reported as quickly as you can (and thank you for that), but I'm sure that you agree this needs more thought to develop a proper solution to what is a much bigger issue than can be solved by sprinkling #ifdefs. I can live with the warning on the basis that a proper fix is in the pipeline, but in the meantime it can serve as a reminder that we're not done here. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning @ 2019-10-01 13:21 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:40PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > As reported by Will Deacon the following compilation warning appears > during the compilation of the vdso32: > > In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, > from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, > from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, > from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, > from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, > from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, > from ./include/linux/time.h:6, > from .../work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, > from <command-line>:0: > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to > integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > ^ > In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, > from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, > from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, > from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, > from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, > from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: > ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to > integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > ^ > > This happens because few 64 bit compilation headers are included during > the generation of vdso32. > > Fix the issue redefining the __tag_set function. > > Note: This fix is meant to be temporary, a more comprehensive solution > based on the refactoring of the generic headers will be provided with a > future patch set. At that point it will be possible to revert this patch. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > index b61b50bf68b1..c61b2eb50a3b 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h > @@ -228,11 +228,14 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) > #define __tag_get(addr) 0 > #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ > > +#ifdef __aarch64__ > +/* Do not attempt to compile this code with compat vdso */ > static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) > { > u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); > return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); > } > +#endif Sorry, but I'm not taking this. I know you're trying to fix the issues I reported as quickly as you can (and thank you for that), but I'm sure that you agree this needs more thought to develop a proper solution to what is a much bigger issue than can be solved by sprinkling #ifdefs. I can live with the warning on the basis that a proper fix is in the pipeline, but in the meantime it can serve as a reminder that we're not done here. Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning 2019-10-01 13:21 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 14:41 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, tglx On 10/1/19 2:21 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:40PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> As reported by Will Deacon the following compilation warning appears >> during the compilation of the vdso32: >> >> In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, >> from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, >> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, >> from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, >> from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, >> from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, >> from ./include/linux/time.h:6, >> from .../work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, >> from <command-line>:0: >> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: >> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to >> integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] >> u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); >> ^ >> In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, >> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, >> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, >> from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, >> from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, >> from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: >> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: >> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to >> integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] >> u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); >> ^ >> >> This happens because few 64 bit compilation headers are included during >> the generation of vdso32. >> >> Fix the issue redefining the __tag_set function. >> >> Note: This fix is meant to be temporary, a more comprehensive solution >> based on the refactoring of the generic headers will be provided with a >> future patch set. At that point it will be possible to revert this patch. >> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> >> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> index b61b50bf68b1..c61b2eb50a3b 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> @@ -228,11 +228,14 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) >> #define __tag_get(addr) 0 >> #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ >> >> +#ifdef __aarch64__ >> +/* Do not attempt to compile this code with compat vdso */ >> static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) >> { >> u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); >> return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); >> } >> +#endif > > Sorry, but I'm not taking this. > > I know you're trying to fix the issues I reported as quickly as you can (and > thank you for that), but I'm sure that you agree this needs more thought to > develop a proper solution to what is a much bigger issue than can be solved > by sprinkling #ifdefs. I can live with the warning on the basis that a > proper fix is in the pipeline, but in the meantime it can serve as a > reminder that we're not done here. > This was my original preference as well, if we silence the warnings we tend to forget about them. Since you reported the issue as urgent, I reacted with something that fixes it temporarily, but I have not objections if you want to wait for a more comprehensive solution. > Will > -- Regards, Vincenzo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning @ 2019-10-01 14:41 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, linux-arm-kernel On 10/1/19 2:21 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:40PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> As reported by Will Deacon the following compilation warning appears >> during the compilation of the vdso32: >> >> In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h:17:0, >> from ./include/linux/thread_info.h:38, >> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h:5, >> from ./include/linux/preempt.h:78, >> from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:51, >> from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:36, >> from ./include/linux/time.h:6, >> from .../work/linux/lib/vdso/gettimeofday.c:7, >> from <command-line>:0: >> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: >> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to >> integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] >> u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); >> ^ >> In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h:8:0, >> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h:34, >> from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/elf.h:118, >> from ./include/linux/elf.h:5, >> from ./include/linux/elfnote.h:62, >> from arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/note.c:11: >> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h: In function ‘__tag_set’: >> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:233:15: warning: cast from pointer to >> integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] >> u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); >> ^ >> >> This happens because few 64 bit compilation headers are included during >> the generation of vdso32. >> >> Fix the issue redefining the __tag_set function. >> >> Note: This fix is meant to be temporary, a more comprehensive solution >> based on the refactoring of the generic headers will be provided with a >> future patch set. At that point it will be possible to revert this patch. >> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> >> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> index b61b50bf68b1..c61b2eb50a3b 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h >> @@ -228,11 +228,14 @@ static inline unsigned long kaslr_offset(void) >> #define __tag_get(addr) 0 >> #endif /* CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS */ >> >> +#ifdef __aarch64__ >> +/* Do not attempt to compile this code with compat vdso */ >> static inline const void *__tag_set(const void *addr, u8 tag) >> { >> u64 __addr = (u64)addr & ~__tag_shifted(0xff); >> return (const void *)(__addr | __tag_shifted(tag)); >> } >> +#endif > > Sorry, but I'm not taking this. > > I know you're trying to fix the issues I reported as quickly as you can (and > thank you for that), but I'm sure that you agree this needs more thought to > develop a proper solution to what is a much bigger issue than can be solved > by sprinkling #ifdefs. I can live with the warning on the basis that a > proper fix is in the pipeline, but in the meantime it can serve as a > reminder that we're not done here. > This was my original preference as well, if we silence the warnings we tend to forget about them. Since you reported the issue as urgent, I reacted with something that fixes it temporarily, but I have not objections if you want to wait for a more comprehensive solution. > Will > -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 4/5] arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx gettimeofday.S was originally removed with the introduction of the support for Unified vDSOs in arm64 and replaced with the C implementation. The file seems again present in the repository due to a side effect of rebase. Remove the file again. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S deleted file mode 100644 index e69de29bb2d1..000000000000 -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 4/5] arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S @ 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will gettimeofday.S was originally removed with the introduction of the support for Unified vDSOs in arm64 and replaced with the C implementation. The file seems again present in the repository due to a side effect of rebase. Remove the file again. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S deleted file mode 100644 index e69de29bb2d1..000000000000 -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64: vdso32: Remove jump label config option in Makefile 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: vincenzo.frascino, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, will, tglx The jump labels are not used in vdso32 since it is not possible to run runtime patching on them. Remove the configuration option from the Makefile. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 77aa61340374..038357a1e835 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -38,9 +38,6 @@ VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-fno-PIE) ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO VDSO_CAFLAGS += -g endif -ifeq ($(shell $(CONFIG_SHELL) $(srctree)/scripts/gcc-goto.sh $(COMPATCC)), y) -VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DCC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO -endif # From arm Makefile VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm) -- 2.23.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64: vdso32: Remove jump label config option in Makefile @ 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, tglx, vincenzo.frascino, will The jump labels are not used in vdso32 since it is not possible to run runtime patching on them. Remove the configuration option from the Makefile. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile index 77aa61340374..038357a1e835 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso32/Makefile @@ -38,9 +38,6 @@ VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-fno-PIE) ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO VDSO_CAFLAGS += -g endif -ifeq ($(shell $(CONFIG_SHELL) $(srctree)/scripts/gcc-goto.sh $(COMPATCC)), y) -VDSO_CAFLAGS += -DCC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO -endif # From arm Makefile VDSO_CAFLAGS += $(call cc32-option,-fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm) -- 2.23.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64: vdso32: Remove jump label config option in Makefile 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-27 9:27 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-27 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:42PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > The jump labels are not used in vdso32 since it is not possible to run > runtime patching on them. > > Remove the configuration option from the Makefile. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64: vdso32: Remove jump label config option in Makefile @ 2019-09-27 9:27 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-27 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:42PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > The jump labels are not used in vdso32 since it is not possible to run > runtime patching on them. > > Remove the configuration option from the Makefile. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/5]arm64: vdso32: Address various issues 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-09-27 10:46 ` Catalin Marinas -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-27 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, will, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:37PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > Vincenzo Frascino (5): > arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC > arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld > arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning > arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S > arm64: vdso32: Remove jump label config option in Makefile You can add this as well: Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/5]arm64: vdso32: Address various issues @ 2019-09-27 10:46 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-09-27 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, will, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:37PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > Vincenzo Frascino (5): > arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC > arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld > arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning > arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S > arm64: vdso32: Remove jump label config option in Makefile You can add this as well: Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/5]arm64: vdso32: Address various issues 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino @ 2019-10-01 13:27 ` Will Deacon -1 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, ard.biesheuvel, ndesaulniers, catalin.marinas, tglx On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:37PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > this patch series is meant to address the various compilation issues you > reported about arm64 vdso32. Thanks, I've commented on the patches. Also, when you respin, please can you drop the "As reported by Will Deacon ..." lines from the commit messages and just add a Reported-by tag instead? Thanks, Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/5]arm64: vdso32: Address various issues @ 2019-10-01 13:27 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 127+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-01 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: ard.biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, ndesaulniers, linux-kernel, tglx, linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:43:37PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > this patch series is meant to address the various compilation issues you > reported about arm64 vdso32. Thanks, I've commented on the patches. Also, when you respin, please can you drop the "As reported by Will Deacon ..." lines from the commit messages and just add a Reported-by tag instead? Thanks, Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 127+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-10-01 17:14 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 127+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-09-20 14:27 Problems with arm64 compat vdso Will Deacon 2019-09-20 16:33 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-23 16:41 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2019-09-24 12:11 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-24 18:06 ` Nick Desaulniers 2019-09-24 20:42 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-25 15:58 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2019-09-26 6:03 ` [PATCH 0/4] arm64: vdso32: Address various issues Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 6:03 ` [PATCH 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 8:06 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 8:06 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 10:56 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 10:56 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 11:02 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 11:02 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 15:23 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 15:23 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 12:22 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 12:22 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 15:17 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 15:17 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 20:17 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 20:17 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 6:03 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 8:30 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 8:30 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 10:59 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 10:59 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 6:03 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 8:32 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 8:32 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 11:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 11:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 6:03 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 6:03 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 8:34 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 8:34 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: vdso32: Address various issues Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 15:13 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 15:13 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 14:26 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 14:26 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 20:19 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 20:19 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 15:59 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 15:59 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 21:17 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 21:17 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 16:23 ` Nick Desaulniers 2019-09-26 16:23 ` Nick Desaulniers 2019-09-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 15:22 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 15:22 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 13:38 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 13:38 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 15:31 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: vdso32: Address various issues Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 15:31 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-26 20:29 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 20:29 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 21:43 ` [PATCH v3 0/5]arm64: " Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 21:43 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-27 9:24 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-27 9:24 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-10-01 13:14 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 13:14 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 13:27 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-10-01 13:27 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-10-01 14:20 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-10-01 14:20 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-10-01 14:20 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 14:20 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 14:37 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-10-01 14:37 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-10-01 14:43 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 14:43 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 14:59 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-10-01 14:59 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-10-01 15:30 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-10-01 15:30 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-10-01 16:46 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 16:46 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 16:59 ` Nick Desaulniers 2019-10-01 16:59 ` Nick Desaulniers 2019-10-01 17:07 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 17:07 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 17:12 ` Nick Desaulniers 2019-10-01 17:12 ` Nick Desaulniers 2019-10-01 17:14 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 17:14 ` Will Deacon 2019-09-26 21:43 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64: vdso32: Detect binutils support for dmb ishld Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-27 9:25 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-27 9:25 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-10-01 13:26 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 13:26 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 14:23 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-10-01 14:23 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 21:43 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] arm64: vdso32: Fix compilation warning Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-27 9:26 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-27 9:26 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-10-01 13:21 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 13:21 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 14:41 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-10-01 14:41 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 21:43 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] arm64: Remove gettimeofday.S Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 21:43 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64: vdso32: Remove jump label config option in Makefile Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-26 21:43 ` Vincenzo Frascino 2019-09-27 9:27 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-27 9:27 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-09-27 10:46 ` [PATCH v3 0/5]arm64: vdso32: Address various issues Catalin Marinas 2019-09-27 10:46 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-10-01 13:27 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-01 13:27 ` Will Deacon
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.