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 10:45:31 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190819154531.GM31406@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44a19633-f2a9-79f9-da7c-16ba64a66600@c-s.fr>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:05:46PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 19/08/2019 à 16:37, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >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.
>
> So you mean GCC would not be able to prove that
> __builtin_constant_p(cond) is always true but it would be able to prove
> that if (cond) is always true ?
Not sure what you mean, sorry.
> And isn't there a away to tell GCC that '__builtin_trap()' is
> recoverable in our case ?
No, GCC knows that a trap will never fall through.
> >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)
>
> It doesn't work:
You need to make a BUG_ENTRY so that it refers to the *following* trap
instruction, if you go this way.
> >I don't know how BUG_ENTRY works exactly.
>
> It's basic, maybe too basic: it adds an inline asm with a label, and
> adds a .long in the __bug_table section with the address of that label.
>
> When putting it after the __builtin_trap(), I changed it to using the
> address before the one of the label which is always the twxx instruction
> as far as I can see.
>
> #define BUG_ENTRY(insn, flags, ...) \
> __asm__ __volatile__( \
> "1: " insn "\n" \
> ".section __bug_table,\"aw\"\n" \
> "2:\t" PPC_LONG "1b, %0\n" \
> "\t.short %1, %2\n" \
> ".org 2b+%3\n" \
> ".previous\n" \
> : : "i" (__FILE__), "i" (__LINE__), \
> "i" (flags), \
> "i" (sizeof(struct bug_entry)), \
> ##__VA_ARGS__)
#define MY_BUG_ENTRY(lab, flags) \
__asm__ __volatile__( \
".section __bug_table,\"aw\"\n" \
"2:\t" PPC_LONG "%4, %0\n" \
"\t.short %1, %2\n" \
".org 2b+%3\n" \
".previous\n" \
: : "i" (__FILE__), "i" (__LINE__), \
"i" (flags), \
"i" (sizeof(struct bug_entry)), \
"i" (lab))
called as
#define BUG_ON(x) do { \
MY_BUG_ENTRY(&&lab, 0); \
lab: if (x) \
__builtin_trap(); \
} while (0)
not sure how reliable that works -- *if* it works, I just typed that in
without testing or anything -- but hopefully you get the idea.
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 10:45:31 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190819154531.GM31406@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44a19633-f2a9-79f9-da7c-16ba64a66600@c-s.fr>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:05:46PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 19/08/2019 à 16:37, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >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.
>
> So you mean GCC would not be able to prove that
> __builtin_constant_p(cond) is always true but it would be able to prove
> that if (cond) is always true ?
Not sure what you mean, sorry.
> And isn't there a away to tell GCC that '__builtin_trap()' is
> recoverable in our case ?
No, GCC knows that a trap will never fall through.
> >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)
>
> It doesn't work:
You need to make a BUG_ENTRY so that it refers to the *following* trap
instruction, if you go this way.
> >I don't know how BUG_ENTRY works exactly.
>
> It's basic, maybe too basic: it adds an inline asm with a label, and
> adds a .long in the __bug_table section with the address of that label.
>
> When putting it after the __builtin_trap(), I changed it to using the
> address before the one of the label which is always the twxx instruction
> as far as I can see.
>
> #define BUG_ENTRY(insn, flags, ...) \
> __asm__ __volatile__( \
> "1: " insn "\n" \
> ".section __bug_table,\"aw\"\n" \
> "2:\t" PPC_LONG "1b, %0\n" \
> "\t.short %1, %2\n" \
> ".org 2b+%3\n" \
> ".previous\n" \
> : : "i" (__FILE__), "i" (__LINE__), \
> "i" (flags), \
> "i" (sizeof(struct bug_entry)), \
> ##__VA_ARGS__)
#define MY_BUG_ENTRY(lab, flags) \
__asm__ __volatile__( \
".section __bug_table,\"aw\"\n" \
"2:\t" PPC_LONG "%4, %0\n" \
"\t.short %1, %2\n" \
".org 2b+%3\n" \
".previous\n" \
: : "i" (__FILE__), "i" (__LINE__), \
"i" (flags), \
"i" (sizeof(struct bug_entry)), \
"i" (lab))
called as
#define BUG_ON(x) do { \
MY_BUG_ENTRY(&&lab, 0); \
lab: if (x) \
__builtin_trap(); \
} while (0)
not sure how reliable that works -- *if* it works, I just typed that in
without testing or anything -- but hopefully you get the idea.
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-19 15:49 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
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 [this message]
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=20190819154531.GM31406@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.