Re: [PATCH] compiler.h: avoid escaped section names

From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
To: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>,
	Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>,
	Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
	linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler.h: avoid escaped section names
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:30:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmA746irmMVAzs5pJz4XgcWMBA8jWM2Ha1Z5c6hajWzJw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdm=H3GDOPo-dbgsqH7UXzC1twz1h2Rdcidh8OXtFtCY4Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 1:25 PM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 1:08 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:43:18PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > The stringification operator, `#`, in the preprocessor escapes strings.
> > > For example, `# "foo"` becomes `"\"foo\""`.  GCC and Clang differ in how
> > > they treat section names that contain \".
> > >
> > > The portable solution is to not use a string literal with the
> > > preprocessor stringification operator.
> > >
> > > In this case, since __section unconditionally uses the stringification
> > > operator, we actually want the more verbose
> > > __attribute__((__section__())).
> > >
> > > Link: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42950
> > > Fixes: commit e04462fb82f8 ("Compiler Attributes: remove uses of __attribute__ from compiler.h")
> > > Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/compiler.h | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
> > > index 92ef163a7479..ac45f6d40d39 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/compiler.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
> > > @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_likely_data *f, int val,
> > >       extern typeof(sym) sym;                                 \
> > >       static const unsigned long __kentry_##sym               \
> > >       __used                                                  \
> > > -     __section("___kentry" "+" #sym )                        \
> > > +     __attribute__((__section__("___kentry+" #sym)))         \
> > >       = (unsigned long)&sym;
> > >  #endif
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.28.0.709.gb0816b6eb0-goog
> > >
> >
> > There was this previous mini-thread:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200629205448.GA1474367@rani.riverdale.lan/
> > and this older one:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190904181740.GA19688@gmail.com/
> >
> > Just for my own curiosity: how does KENTRY actually get used? grep
> > doesn't show any hits, and the thread from 2019 was actually going to
> > drop it if I read it right, and also just remove stringification from
> > the __section macro.
>
> Oh, sorry I didn't respond on that thread; I could have sworn I ran a
> grep for KENTRY back then.
>
> $ git log -S KENTRY

Added by
b67067f1176df6ee727450546b58704e4b588563 ?

>
> Doesn't seem to get any hits, so I'm not sure what I should use for a
> proper Fixes tag in the event we just remove it.  Let me grab lunch,
> then I'll send a v2 that just removes the KENTRY block.  Thanks for
> the reminder!
>
> And I don't remember what ever happened to Joe's script for treewide
> conversion of __section.
> --
> Thanks,
> ~Nick Desaulniers


-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers