Re: [clang] stack protector and f1f029c7bf

[Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 3:38 PM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:06 PM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> > On 05/25/18 13:36, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:56 AM <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> > >> You need the extern inline in the .h file and the out-of-line .S file
> > > I don't see how you can specify to the linker from assembly source that
> > > this function should be treated as `extern inline`?
> > "extern inline" is a C directive. In the header file you should provide
> > the inlinable implementation (which is already there.) It means that "if
> > you don't want to inline this there is an external implementation
> > available."
>
> oh you put `extern inline` on the definition, not the declaration?! What?!
>
> http://m68hc11.serveftp.org/inline-1.php
>
> in fact documents that trick.  Wow, I've never seen that before.  Seems
> like there's not too many instances in the kernel.
>
> This seems to inline native_save_fl() properly into the call sites, but the
> boot code now fails to link due to multiple definitions when trying link
> the objects from arch/x86/boot/compressed/ into vmlinux.
>
> When disassembling the the arch/x86/boot/compressed/ objects, I can see
> they're pulling in the `extern inline` c versions, but still outlining
> them! (gcc and clang).
>
> That seems to contradict the statement from the above link:
> "In no case is the function compiled on its own, not even if you refer to
> its address explicitly"
>
> This is kind of funny; first we were wondering why native_save_fl was
> getting outlined as a static inline function, which Alistair tracked down
> to the incorrect use as a function pointer. Now I'm playing why is
> native_save_fl getting outlined as an extern inline function.
>
> If I move the .S file to be in arch/x86/kernel/boot/compressed, the boot
> code now links but then paravirt.o fails to link.  Referring to the .S from
> both Makefiles results in multiple definitions that the linker doesn't
> like. (and the boot code still containing outlines).
>
> I don't understand how `extern inline` signals to the linker that "this
> version should be taken if you find no others".  From what I can tell with
> `readelf -a` and `objdump -d`, a function marked `extern inline` vs not
> look similar.
>
> Then again, arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile completely resets
> KBUILD_CFLAGS and KBUILD_AFLAGS, which may be problematic (if there's some
> kind of command line flag that affects `extern inline` linkage).

Aha! This (wiping away CFLAGS) was it!  The rules for `extern inline`
for gnu89 and c99 are exactly the opposite! [0][1]

c99: "a function defined extern inline will always, emit an externally
visible function."

but then

gnu89: "gnu89 semantics of inline and extern inline are essentially
the exact opposite of those in C99"

This is elaborated more concisely in [2].

If I add `-std=gnu89` to the KBUILD_CFLAGS for compilation units that
are missing that flag but include irqflags.h, I stop getting multiple
definition linkage errors and link the expected kernel image!

This is something to seriously consider for whoever might ever want to
change the kernel's C standard: that you'll end up flipping the
semantics of `extern inline`.  Sounds like `-fgnu89-inline` compiler
flag or `gnu_inline` attribute could be used to correct such a
situation.

+ KBUILD maintainers and mailing list.

Completely overwriting the KBUILD_CFLAGS from sub directory Makefiles
(using the := operator) has been making me feel uneasy, since we very
carefully try to set the necessary flags for Clang in the top level
Makefile.  In this case, the C standard is different for at least 2
subdirectories, which has implications for at least the above case
with the linkage of `extern inline` functions.

Will do further testing and cut a patch set tomorrow.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_function#C99
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_function#gnu89
[2] http://blahg.josefsipek.net/?p=529
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers