From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: nivedita@alum.mit.edu, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
keescook@chromium.org, ndesaulniers@google.com,
rdunlap@infradead.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] compiler.h: fix barrier_data() on clang" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 17:12:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1605543166238208@kroah.com> (raw)
The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 3347acc6fcd4ee71ad18a9ff9d9dac176b517329 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 22:51:59 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] compiler.h: fix barrier_data() on clang
Commit 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h
mutually exclusive") neglected to copy barrier_data() from
compiler-gcc.h into compiler-clang.h.
The definition in compiler-gcc.h was really to work around clang's more
aggressive optimization, so this broke barrier_data() on clang, and
consequently memzero_explicit() as well.
For example, this results in at least the memzero_explicit() call in
lib/crypto/sha256.c:sha256_transform() being optimized away by clang.
Fix this by moving the definition of barrier_data() into compiler.h.
Also move the gcc/clang definition of barrier() into compiler.h,
__memory_barrier() is icc-specific (and barrier() is already defined
using it in compiler-intel.h) and doesn't belong in compiler.h.
[rdunlap@infradead.org: fix ALPHA builds when SMP is not enabled]
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201101231835.4589-1-rdunlap@infradead.org
Fixes: 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h mutually exclusive")
Signed-off-by: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Tested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201014212631.207844-1-nivedita@alum.mit.edu
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/barrier.h b/include/asm-generic/barrier.h
index 798027bb89be..640f09479bdf 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/barrier.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/barrier.h
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
+#include <linux/compiler.h>
#include <asm/rwonce.h>
#ifndef nop
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-clang.h b/include/linux/compiler-clang.h
index 230604e7f057..dd7233c48bf3 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler-clang.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler-clang.h
@@ -60,12 +60,6 @@
#define COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW 1
#endif
-/* The following are for compatibility with GCC, from compiler-gcc.h,
- * and may be redefined here because they should not be shared with other
- * compilers, like ICC.
- */
-#define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("" : : : "memory")
-
#if __has_feature(shadow_call_stack)
# define __noscs __attribute__((__no_sanitize__("shadow-call-stack")))
#endif
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
index 5deb37024574..74c6c0486eed 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
@@ -15,25 +15,6 @@
# error Sorry, your version of GCC is too old - please use 4.9 or newer.
#endif
-/* Optimization barrier */
-
-/* The "volatile" is due to gcc bugs */
-#define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory")
-/*
- * This version is i.e. to prevent dead stores elimination on @ptr
- * where gcc and llvm may behave differently when otherwise using
- * normal barrier(): while gcc behavior gets along with a normal
- * barrier(), llvm needs an explicit input variable to be assumed
- * clobbered. The issue is as follows: while the inline asm might
- * access any memory it wants, the compiler could have fit all of
- * @ptr into memory registers instead, and since @ptr never escaped
- * from that, it proved that the inline asm wasn't touching any of
- * it. This version works well with both compilers, i.e. we're telling
- * the compiler that the inline asm absolutely may see the contents
- * of @ptr. See also: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15495
- */
-#define barrier_data(ptr) __asm__ __volatile__("": :"r"(ptr) :"memory")
-
/*
* This macro obfuscates arithmetic on a variable address so that gcc
* shouldn't recognize the original var, and make assumptions about it.
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
index e512f5505dad..b8fe0c23cfff 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
@@ -80,11 +80,25 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_likely_data *f, int val,
/* Optimization barrier */
#ifndef barrier
-# define barrier() __memory_barrier()
+/* The "volatile" is due to gcc bugs */
+# define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory")
#endif
#ifndef barrier_data
-# define barrier_data(ptr) barrier()
+/*
+ * This version is i.e. to prevent dead stores elimination on @ptr
+ * where gcc and llvm may behave differently when otherwise using
+ * normal barrier(): while gcc behavior gets along with a normal
+ * barrier(), llvm needs an explicit input variable to be assumed
+ * clobbered. The issue is as follows: while the inline asm might
+ * access any memory it wants, the compiler could have fit all of
+ * @ptr into memory registers instead, and since @ptr never escaped
+ * from that, it proved that the inline asm wasn't touching any of
+ * it. This version works well with both compilers, i.e. we're telling
+ * the compiler that the inline asm absolutely may see the contents
+ * of @ptr. See also: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15495
+ */
+# define barrier_data(ptr) __asm__ __volatile__("": :"r"(ptr) :"memory")
#endif
/* workaround for GCC PR82365 if needed */
reply other threads:[~2020-11-16 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=1605543166238208@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=nivedita@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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 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.