Re: [PATCH] arm64: Allow disabling of the compat vDSO

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:06:50AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On 9/25/19 6:08 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:53:16AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 6:09 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> >>> Suggestions for future improvements of the compat vDSO handling:
> >>>
> >>> - replace the CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT prefix with a full COMPATCC; maybe
> >>>   check that it indeed produces 32-bit code
> 
> CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is called like this for symmetry with CROSS_COMPILE.

Actually, what gets in the way is the CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO.
We can keep CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT together with COMPATCC initialised to
$(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc. When we will be able to build the compat
vDSO with clang, we just pass COMPATCC=clang on the make line and the
kernel Makefile will figure out the --target option from
CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT (see how CLANG_FLAGS is handled).

If we stick only to env variables or make cmd line (without Kconfig) for
the compiler name, we can add a COMPATCC_IS_CLANG in the Kconfig
directly and simply not allow the enabling the COMPAT_VDSO if we don't
have the right compiler. This saves us warnings during build.

> >>> - check whether COMPATCC is clang or not rather than CC_IS_CLANG, which
> >>>   only checks the native compiler
> >>
> >> When cross compiling, IIUC CC_IS_CLANG is referring to CC which is the
> >> cross compiler, which is different than HOSTCC which is the host
> >> compiler.  HOSTCC is used mostly for things in scripts/ while CC is
> >> used to compile a majority of the kernel in a cross compile.
> > 
> > We need the third compiler here for the compat vDSO (at least with gcc),
> > COMPATCC. I'm tempted to just drop the CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO
> > altogether and only rely on a COMPATCC. This way we can add
> > COMPATCC_IS_CLANG etc. in the Kconfig checks directly.
> > 
> > If clang can build both 32 and 64-bit with the same binary (just
> > different options), we could maybe have COMPATCC default to CC and add a
> > check on whether COMPATCC generates 32-bit binaries.
> 
> clang requires the --target option for specifying the 32bit triple.
> Basically $(TRIPLE)-gcc is equivalent to gcc --target $(TRIPLE).
> We need a configuration option to encode this.

Since we don't have a CONFIG_* option for the cross-compiler prefix, we
shouldn't have one for the compat compiler either. If you want to build
the compat vDSO with clang, just pass COMPATCC=clang together with
CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT. We can add Kconfig checks to actually verify that
COMPATCC generates 32-bit binaries (e.g. COMPATCC_CAN_LINK32).

> >>> - clean up the headers includes; vDSO should not include kernel-only
> >>>   headers that may even contain code patched at run-time
> >>
> >> This is a big one; Clang validates the inline asm constraints for
> >> extended inline assembly, GCC does not for dead code.  So Clang chokes
> >> on the inclusion of arm64 headers using extended inline assembly when
> >> being compiled for arm-linux-gnueabi.
> > 
> > Whether clang or gcc, I'd like this fixed anyway. At some point we may
> > inadvertently rely on some code which is patched at boot time for the
> > kernel code but not for the vDSO.
> 
> Do we have any code of this kind in header files?
> 
> The vDSO library uses only a subset of the headers (mainly Macros) hence all the
> unused symbols should be compiled out. Is your concern only theoretical or do
> you have an example on where this could be happening?

At the moment it's rather theoretical.

-- 
Catalin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel