From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431A8C43461 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:17:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mother.openwall.net (mother.openwall.net [195.42.179.200]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36230206CA for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="DChiCwze" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 36230206CA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel-hardening-return-19841-kernel-hardening=archiver.kernel.org@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 16149 invoked by uid 550); 10 Sep 2020 15:17:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact kernel-hardening-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Received: (qmail 16114 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2020 15:17:34 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=tPQ89cuIIRpR65Gxj5ecjevE7KdkPR+rkFKg2EWJ1Wo=; b=DChiCwzeZGIWq9/ed/gKC6HSdKRqhEs7Cl7tIqKCGERK9KOYJoH5HR7PeRQFbOp0ZQ khZeS1vnyB3+LRhvPvqPzg1++dxbQ65OlIG3+zElXCaofAPycZykfEboSqoECnwgYkc8 MjBJnNXFCtUW2Ff6DrHl+sxDflI9XbnpK+uT5XCk1aFiT5HbdZScO79bQK/bPprVs9ke AKI0Gc5Gmjyb5KEUqFWbhTCjq+hID3NQ5SFYjD5nGdby6rdJDucAdfiBRYrvqN5RUvSp a/e3IDc7KLOgC5+PLCtG+ltNKm9AU2kQQzP0O8rhwbvaICVCr6rc7DiwJMJDGG5odV8E t8+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=tPQ89cuIIRpR65Gxj5ecjevE7KdkPR+rkFKg2EWJ1Wo=; b=YFjBWC1fecXYLSaDSAAAa8ClqjsvHqNmpRcu3YYkZQhlZSXfbtA2XD7cxEJ2hTE9AQ PWUiLLbZeDg92Vd7dphY3RWBGI9a8X4nSGqt5kuKI4tZOVa0/7/ZclhpTP0jilAxlAAG WfIgUrJ+9NWNqdHMzhIw+IyjKtpA/jUpu6ZW6RHAV4DvqZgnG0I7318ZIRgKC8aRY5TK WKFO0UtFA0CE4IZ2ZWEpSzXnQ0Qyr2nofsSDmo+T0ihpsBQgiE4ao2rmEe67oAlI29No 1Jao9yTwbFObp36TtS3W23Zot6NcKlLj8CtB9mbrWR0sIhNwhC9BtlUaMyfl2dyiy7Uj 3i/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531rU3XKYwwFGCwA7gFcS9qoogkHS6S4g84WYgDtn432TnTws7Q0 wSaIgB9tl2x/CdNmyU7OvfC8j/G0nVkwwg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzN/GMDnhYVZz/m1t04YSzXdezukOM0X0fLu2KC5nqmbsead/T/1/lyPGlr1z5YJ1TUoUk/HA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1915:: with SMTP id mp21mr407790pjb.116.1599751042106; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:17:15 -0700 From: Sami Tolvanen To: Masahiro Yamada Cc: Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Paul E. McKenney" , Kees Cook , Nick Desaulniers , clang-built-linux , Kernel Hardening , linux-arch , linux-arm-kernel , Linux Kbuild mailing list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, X86 ML Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/28] Add support for Clang LTO Message-ID: <20200910151715.GB2041735@google.com> References: <20200624203200.78870-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <20200903203053.3411268-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <20200908234643.GF1060586@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:18:05AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:46 AM Sami Tolvanen wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 09:24:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 5:30 AM Sami Tolvanen wrote: > > > > > > > > This patch series adds support for building x86_64 and arm64 kernels > > > > with Clang's Link Time Optimization (LTO). > > > > > > > > In addition to performance, the primary motivation for LTO is > > > > to allow Clang's Control-Flow Integrity (CFI) to be used in the > > > > kernel. Google has shipped millions of Pixel devices running three > > > > major kernel versions with LTO+CFI since 2018. > > > > > > > > Most of the patches are build system changes for handling LLVM > > > > bitcode, which Clang produces with LTO instead of ELF object files, > > > > postponing ELF processing until a later stage, and ensuring initcall > > > > ordering. > > > > > > > > Note that patches 1-4 are not directly related to LTO, but are > > > > needed to compile LTO kernels with ToT Clang, so I'm including them > > > > in the series for your convenience: > > > > > > > > - Patches 1-3 are required for building the kernel with ToT Clang, > > > > and IAS, and patch 4 is needed to build allmodconfig with LTO. > > > > > > > > - Patches 3-4 are already in linux-next, but not yet in 5.9-rc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still do not understand how this patch set works. > > > (only me?) > > > > > > Please let me ask fundamental questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > I applied this series on top of Linus' tree, > > > and compiled for ARCH=arm64. > > > > > > I compared the kernel size with/without LTO. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] No LTO (arm64 defconfig, CONFIG_LTO_NONE) > > > > > > $ llvm-size vmlinux > > > text data bss dec hex filename > > > 15848692 10099449 493060 26441201 19375f1 vmlinux > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] Clang LTO (arm64 defconfig + CONFIG_LTO_CLANG) > > > > > > $ llvm-size vmlinux > > > text data bss dec hex filename > > > 15906864 10197445 490804 26595113 195cf29 vmlinux > > > > > > > > > I compared the size of raw binary, arch/arm64/boot/Image. > > > Its size increased too. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, in my experiment, enabling CONFIG_LTO_CLANG > > > increases the kernel size. > > > Is this correct? > > > > Yes. LTO does produce larger binaries, mostly due to function > > inlining between translation units, I believe. The compiler people > > can probably give you a more detailed answer here. Without -mllvm > > -import-instr-limit, the binaries would be even larger. > > > > > One more thing, could you teach me > > > how Clang LTO optimizes the code against > > > relocatable objects? > > > > > > > > > > > > When I learned Clang LTO first, I read this document: > > > https://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html > > > > > > It is easy to confirm the final executable > > > does not contain foo2, foo3... > > > > > > > > > > > > In contrast to userspace programs, > > > kernel modules are basically relocatable objects. > > > > > > Does Clang drop unused symbols from relocatable objects? > > > If so, how? > > > > I don't think the compiler can legally drop global symbols from > > relocatable objects, but it can rename and possibly even drop static > > functions. > > > Compilers can drop static functions without LTO. > Rather, it is a compiler warning > (-Wunused-function), so the code should be cleaned up. > > > > > This is why we need global wrappers for initcalls, for > > example, to have stable symbol names. > > > > Sami > > > > At first, I thought the motivation of LTO > was to remove unused global symbols, and > to perform further optimization. > > > It is true for userspace programs. > In fact, the example of > https://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html > produces a smaller binary. > > > In contrast, this patch set produces a bigger kernel > because LTO cannot remove any unused symbol. > > So, I do not understand what the benefit is. > > > Is inlining beneficial? > I am not sure. > > > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > "15) The inline disease" > mentions that inlining is not always > a good thing. > > > As a whole, I still do not understand > the motivation of this patch set. Clang produces faster code with LTO even if unused functions are not removed, and I'm not sure how many unused globals there really are in the kernel that aren't exported for modules. However, as I mentioned in the cover letter, we also need LTO for Control-Flow Integrity (CFI), which we have used in Pixel kernels for a couple of years now, and plan to use in more Android devices in future: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.html Sami