All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: use __builtin_trap() in BUG/WARN macros.
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:37:00 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190819143700.GK31406@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dbafc03a-6eda-d9a3-c451-d242f03b01d9@c-s.fr>

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 04:08:43PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 19/08/2019 à 15:23, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 01:06:31PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >>Note that we keep using an assembly text using "twi 31, 0, 0" for
> >>inconditional traps because GCC drops all code after
> >>__builtin_trap() when the condition is always true at build time.
> >
> >As I said, it can also do this for conditional traps, if it can prove
> >the condition is always true.
> 
> But we have another branch for 'always true' and 'always false' using 
> __builtin_constant_p(), which don't use __builtin_trap(). Is there 
> anything wrong with that ?:

The compiler might not realise it is constant when it evaluates the
__builtin_constant_p, but only realises it later.  As the documentation
for the builtin says:
  A return of 0 does not indicate that the
  value is _not_ a constant, but merely that GCC cannot prove it is a
  constant with the specified value of the '-O' option.

(and there should be many more and more serious warnings here).

> #define BUG_ON(x) do {						\
> 	if (__builtin_constant_p(x)) {				\
> 		if (x)						\
> 			BUG();					\
> 	} else {						\
> 		if (x)						\
> 			__builtin_trap();			\
> 		BUG_ENTRY("", 0);				\
> 	}							\
> } while (0)

I think it may work if you do

#define BUG_ON(x) do {						\
	if (__builtin_constant_p(x)) {				\
		if (x)						\
			BUG();					\
	} else {						\
		BUG_ENTRY("", 0);				\
		if (x)						\
			__builtin_trap();			\
	}							\
} while (0)

or even just

#define BUG_ON(x) do {						\
	BUG_ENTRY("", 0);					\
	if (x)							\
		__builtin_trap();				\
	}							\
} while (0)

if BUG_ENTRY can work for the trap insn *after* it.

> >Can you put the bug table asm *before* the __builtin_trap maybe?  That
> >should make it all work fine...  If you somehow can tell what machine
> >instruction is that trap, anyway.
> 
> And how can I tell that ?

I don't know how BUG_ENTRY works exactly.


Segher

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: use __builtin_trap() in BUG/WARN macros.
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:37:00 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190819143700.GK31406@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dbafc03a-6eda-d9a3-c451-d242f03b01d9@c-s.fr>

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 04:08:43PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 19/08/2019 à 15:23, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 01:06:31PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >>Note that we keep using an assembly text using "twi 31, 0, 0" for
> >>inconditional traps because GCC drops all code after
> >>__builtin_trap() when the condition is always true at build time.
> >
> >As I said, it can also do this for conditional traps, if it can prove
> >the condition is always true.
> 
> But we have another branch for 'always true' and 'always false' using 
> __builtin_constant_p(), which don't use __builtin_trap(). Is there 
> anything wrong with that ?:

The compiler might not realise it is constant when it evaluates the
__builtin_constant_p, but only realises it later.  As the documentation
for the builtin says:
  A return of 0 does not indicate that the
  value is _not_ a constant, but merely that GCC cannot prove it is a
  constant with the specified value of the '-O' option.

(and there should be many more and more serious warnings here).

> #define BUG_ON(x) do {						\
> 	if (__builtin_constant_p(x)) {				\
> 		if (x)						\
> 			BUG();					\
> 	} else {						\
> 		if (x)						\
> 			__builtin_trap();			\
> 		BUG_ENTRY("", 0);				\
> 	}							\
> } while (0)

I think it may work if you do

#define BUG_ON(x) do {						\
	if (__builtin_constant_p(x)) {				\
		if (x)						\
			BUG();					\
	} else {						\
		BUG_ENTRY("", 0);				\
		if (x)						\
			__builtin_trap();			\
	}							\
} while (0)

or even just

#define BUG_ON(x) do {						\
	BUG_ENTRY("", 0);					\
	if (x)							\
		__builtin_trap();				\
	}							\
} while (0)

if BUG_ENTRY can work for the trap insn *after* it.

> >Can you put the bug table asm *before* the __builtin_trap maybe?  That
> >should make it all work fine...  If you somehow can tell what machine
> >instruction is that trap, anyway.
> 
> And how can I tell that ?

I don't know how BUG_ENTRY works exactly.


Segher

  reply	other threads:[~2019-08-19 14:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-19 13:06 [PATCH 1/3] powerpc: don't use __WARN() for WARN_ON() Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 13:06 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 13:06 ` [PATCH 2/3] powerpc: refactoring BUG/WARN macros Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 13:06   ` Christophe Leroy
2019-11-25 10:46   ` Michael Ellerman
2019-08-19 13:06 ` [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: use __builtin_trap() in " Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 13:06   ` Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 13:23   ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-19 13:23     ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-19 14:08     ` Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 14:08       ` Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 14:37       ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2019-08-19 14:37         ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-19 15:05         ` Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 15:05           ` Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 15:45           ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-19 15:45             ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-23 15:35             ` Christophe Leroy
2019-08-23 15:35               ` Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 16:28 ` [PATCH 1/3] powerpc: don't use __WARN() for WARN_ON() Kees Cook
2019-08-19 16:28   ` Kees Cook
2019-08-19 17:29   ` Clean up cut-here even harder (was Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc: don't use __WARN() for WARN_ON()) Kees Cook
2019-08-19 17:29     ` Kees Cook

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=20190819143700.GK31406@gate.crashing.org \
    --to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.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.