Re: [PATCH] ARM: Add a memory clobber to the fmrx instruction

zhuqiuer
2024-04-10T02:42:14Z

> > Instruction fmrx is used throughout the kernel,
> > where it is sometimes expected to be skipped
> > by incrementing the program counter, such as in vfpmodule.c:vfp_init().
> > Therefore, the instruction should not be reordered when it is not intended.
> > Adding a barrier() instruction before and after this call cannot prevent
> > reordering by the compiler, as the fmrx instruction is constrained
> > by '=r', meaning it works on the general register but not on memory.
> > To ensure the order of the instruction after compiling,
> > adding a memory clobber is necessary.
> >
> > Below is the code snippet disassembled from the method:
> > vfpmodule.c:vfp_init(), compiled by LLVM.
> >
> > Before the patching:
> > xxxxx: xxxxx bl c010c688 <register_undef_hook>
> > xxxxx: xxxxx mov r0, r4
> > xxxxx: xxxxx bl c010c6e4 <unregister_undef_hook>
> > ...
> > xxxxx: xxxxx bl c0791c8c <printk>
> > xxxxx: xxxxx movw r5, #23132 ; 0x5a5c
> > xxxxx: xxxxx vmrs r4, fpsid <- this is the fmrx instruction
> >
> > After the patching:
> > xxxxx: xxxxx bl c010c688 <register_undef_hook>
> > xxxxx: xxxxx mov r0, r4
> > xxxxx: xxxxx vmrs r5, fpsid <- this is the fmrx instruction
> > xxxxx: xxxxx bl c010c6e4 <unregister_undef_hook>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: zhuqiuer <zhuqiuer1@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/vfp/vfpinstr.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/vfp/vfpinstr.h b/arch/arm/vfp/vfpinstr.h
> > index 3c7938fd40aa..e70129e10b8e 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/vfp/vfpinstr.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/vfp/vfpinstr.h
> > @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@
> > u32 __v; \
> > asm(".fpu vfpv2\n" \
> > "vmrs %0, " #_vfp_ \
> > - : "=r" (__v) : : "cc"); \
> > + : "=r" (__v) : : "memory", "cc"); \
> > __v; \
> > })
> >
> > --
> > 2.12.3
> >
>
> This seems like the same issue that Ard was addressing with this patch
> at https://lore.kernel.org/20240318093004.117153-2-ardb+git@google.com/,
> does that change work for your situation as well? I do not really have a
> strong preference between the two approaches, Ard also mentioned using
> *current in the asm constraints as another option.

Sorry for not reading Ard's thread at first.
Yes, using "asm volatile" also worked for our case, and it was our previous solution.
But we later switched to the memory clobber due to the same reason that you mentioned in Ard's thread.
We believe that a memory clobber is robust enough to prevent the reordering situation mentioned.

v1 -> v2: Adding a memory clobber the fmxr instruction.