From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>,
arnd@arndb.de, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, joel@jms.id.au,
ulli.kroll@googlemail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: copypage: do not use naked functions
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 09:33:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181016083341.GE30658@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YSQ.7.76.1810151908450.1498@knanqh.ubzr>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 07:27:43PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> It's hard to see what that commit was actually fixing, but the operands
> usage is wrong as explained already. Maybe the generated code has been
> OK for all those years but that is due to luck rather than correctness.
...
> No idea. Maybe Russell remembers?
> Maybe digging into the mailing list archive might tell.
I found this as a reply to the patch by Mikael Pettersson:
I've tested and verified that this bit enables a gcc-4.5 compiled kernel
to boot on TS-119 (Kirkwood) when combined with my fix for __naked.
With neither or only one of the patches applied, the kernel oopses hard
in copy_user_page() as it tries to start /sbin/init.
...
- the asm() bodies of these __naked functions have inadequate input
parameter constraints, in particular they fail to declare any
dependencies on the functions' formal parameters; gcc-4.5 sees this
and skips the parameter setup before calling these functions, causing
runtime crashes; Khem's patch (this one) fixes that
(copypage-xscale.c already had correct asm() constraints so it works
with only the __naked fix, these other copypage-*.c files need both
patches to work)
So, while wrong to the GCC manual, it's fixing a bug that is present
with gcc-4.5 and who-knows what other GCC versions. Reverting the
commit has the chance to cause regressions with GCC.
It looks like any change here needs to be validated on a range of
GCC versions, because there are versions of GCC known not to follow
it's manual!
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-16 8:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-15 22:26 [PATCH 2/2] ARM: copypage: do not use naked functions Stefan Agner
2018-10-15 22:35 ` Nicolas Pitre
2018-10-15 22:41 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-10-15 22:51 ` Stefan Agner
2018-10-15 23:27 ` Nicolas Pitre
2018-10-16 8:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2018-10-16 12:09 ` Stefan Agner
2018-10-15 22:54 ` Nicolas Pitre
2018-10-15 23:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181016083341.GE30658@n2100.armlinux.org.uk \
--to=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=joel@jms.id.au \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.pitre@linaro.org \
--cc=stefan@agner.ch \
--cc=ulli.kroll@googlemail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).