All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: John David Anglin <dave.anglin@bell.net>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] lib: checksum: Use aligned accesses for ip_fast_csum and csum_ipv6_magic tests
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:42:16 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zc5pGIDgLrM0uepc@ghost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a7b70196-2387-4532-94ac-81220fd07088@roeck-us.net>

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:42:29AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/15/24 09:25, John David Anglin wrote:
> > On 2024-02-15 12:06 p.m., Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 2/15/24 08:51, John David Anglin wrote:
> > > > On 2024-02-15 10:44 a.m., Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > On 2/15/24 02:27, David Laight wrote:
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > It would be worthwhile tracking this down since there are
> > > > > > > lots of unaligned data accesses (8-byte accesses on 4-byte aligned addresses)
> > > > > > > when running the kernel in 64-bit mode.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hmmm....
> > > > > > For performance reasons you really don't want any of them.
> > > > > > The misaligned 64bit fields need an __attribute((aligned(4)) marker.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If the checksum code can do them it really needs to detect
> > > > > > and handle the misalignment.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The misaligned trap handler probably ought to contain a
> > > > > > warn_on_once() to dump stack on the first such error.
> > > > > > They can then be fixed one at a time.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Unaligned LDD at unwind_once+0x4a8/0x5e0
> > > > > 
> > > > > Decoded:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Unaligned LDD at unwind_once (arch/parisc/kernel/unwind.c:212 arch/parisc/kernel/unwind.c:243 arch/parisc/kernel/unwind.c:371 arch/parisc/kernel/unwind.c:445)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Source:
> > > > > 
> > > > > static bool pc_is_kernel_fn(unsigned long pc, void *fn)
> > > > > {
> > > > >         return (unsigned long)dereference_kernel_function_descriptor(fn) == pc;
> > > > This looks wrong to me.  Function descriptors should always be 8-byte aligned.  I think this
> > > > routine should return false if fn isn't 8-byte aligned.
> > > 
> > > Below you state "Code entry points only need 4-byte alignment."
> > > 
> > > I think that contradicts each other. Also, the calling code is,
> > > for example,
> > >     pc_is_kernel_fn(pc, syscall_exit)
> > > 
> > > I fail to see how this can be consolidated if it is ok
> > > that syscall_exit is 4-byte aligned but, at the same time,
> > > must be 8-byte aligned to be considered to be a kernel function.
> > In the above call, syscall_exit is treated as a function pointer. It points to an 8-byte aligned
> > function descriptor.  The descriptor holds the actual address of the function.  It only needs
> > 4-byte alignment.
> > 
> > Descriptors need 8-byte alignment for efficiency on 64-bit parisc. The pc and gp are accessed
> > using ldd instructions.
> > 
> 
> How about the patch below ?
> 
> Guenter
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/unwind.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/unwind.c
> index 27ae40a443b8..c2b9e23cbc0a 100644
> --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/unwind.c
> +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/unwind.c
> @@ -214,24 +214,14 @@ static bool pc_is_kernel_fn(unsigned long pc, void *fn)
> 
>  static int unwind_special(struct unwind_frame_info *info, unsigned long pc, int frame_size)
>  {
> -       /*
> -        * We have to use void * instead of a function pointer, because
> -        * function pointers aren't a pointer to the function on 64-bit.
> -        * Make them const so the compiler knows they live in .text
> -        * Note: We could use dereference_kernel_function_descriptor()
> -        * instead but we want to keep it simple here.
> -        */
> -       extern void * const ret_from_kernel_thread;
> -       extern void * const syscall_exit;
> -       extern void * const intr_return;
> -       extern void * const _switch_to_ret;
> +       void (*ret_from_kernel_thread)(void);
> +       void (*syscall_exit)(void);
> +       void (*intr_return)(void);
> +       void (*_switch_to_ret)(void);
>  #ifdef CONFIG_IRQSTACKS
> -       extern void * const _call_on_stack;
> +       void (*_call_on_stack)(void);
>  #endif /* CONFIG_IRQSTACKS */
> -       void *ptr;
> -
> -       ptr = dereference_kernel_function_descriptor(&handle_interruption);
> -       if (pc_is_kernel_fn(pc, ptr)) {
> +       if (pc_is_kernel_fn(pc, handle_interruption)) {
>                 struct pt_regs *regs = (struct pt_regs *)(info->sp - frame_size - PT_SZ_ALGN);
>                 dbg("Unwinding through handle_interruption()\n");
>                 info->prev_sp = regs->gr[30];
> 

Seems like a promising direction.

It feels like we have hit a point when we should "close" this thread and
start potentially a couple new ones to correct the behavior of
saving/restoring the PSW and this behavior with unwind.

I don't know what the proper etiquitte is for reverting back to a
previous patch, should I send a v9 that is just the same as the v7?

Thank you Guenter and John for looking into the parisc behavior!

- Charlie


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-02-15 19:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-14 21:41 [PATCH v8 0/2] lib: checksum: Fix issues with checksum tests Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-14 21:41 ` [PATCH v8 1/2] lib: checksum: Fix type casting in checksum kunits Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-14 21:41 ` [PATCH v8 2/2] lib: checksum: Use aligned accesses for ip_fast_csum and csum_ipv6_magic tests Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-14 23:03   ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15  1:30     ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-15  1:58       ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15  3:00         ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15  3:35           ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-15  4:11             ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-15  8:56             ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 15:36               ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-15 16:30                 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 16:51                   ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-15 17:13                     ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 17:29                     ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 15:22           ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-16  5:54         ` Helge Deller
2024-02-16  5:25           ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-16  7:31             ` Helge Deller
2024-02-16  6:58               ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-16  6:09           ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-16  6:13             ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-16 12:05               ` Helge Deller
2024-02-16 18:22           ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 10:27     ` David Laight
2024-02-15 15:44       ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 16:51         ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 17:06           ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 17:25             ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 18:17               ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 18:56                 ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 21:00                   ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 21:08                     ` John David Anglin
2024-02-15 18:42               ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15 19:41                 ` David Laight
2024-02-15 19:42                 ` Charlie Jenkins [this message]
2024-02-16  5:00                   ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-15  1:24   ` Guenter Roeck

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=Zc5pGIDgLrM0uepc@ghost \
    --to=charlie@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dave.anglin@bell.net \
    --cc=deller@gmx.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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.