From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robin.murphy@arm.com (Robin Murphy) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:55:36 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: kvm: fix building with gcc-8 In-Reply-To: <20180202150756.420422-1-arnd@arndb.de> References: <20180202150756.420422-1-arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <2cff070a-357d-c5f5-9ec6-036d93112ce4@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/02/18 15:07, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > In banked-sr.c, we use a top-level '__asm__(".arch_extension virt")' > statement to allow compilation of a multi-CPU kernel for ARMv6 > and older ARMv7-A that don't normally support access to the banked > registers. > > This is considered to be a programming error by the gcc developers > and will no longer work in gcc-8, where we now get a build error: > > /tmp/cc4Qy7GR.s:34: Error: Banked registers are not available with this architecture. -- `mrs r3,SP_usr' > /tmp/cc4Qy7GR.s:41: Error: Banked registers are not available with this architecture. -- `mrs r3,ELR_hyp' > /tmp/cc4Qy7GR.s:55: Error: Banked registers are not available with this architecture. -- `mrs r3,SP_svc' > /tmp/cc4Qy7GR.s:62: Error: Banked registers are not available with this architecture. -- `mrs r3,LR_svc' > /tmp/cc4Qy7GR.s:69: Error: Banked registers are not available with this architecture. -- `mrs r3,SPSR_svc' > /tmp/cc4Qy7GR.s:76: Error: Banked registers are not available with this architecture. -- `mrs r3,SP_abt' > > Passign the '-march-armv7ve' flag to gcc works, and is ok here, because > we know the functions won't ever be called on pre-ARMv7VE machines. > Unfortunately, older compiler versions (4.8 and earlier) do not understand > that flag, so we still need to keep the asm around. > > Backporting to stable kernels (4.6+) is needed to allow those to be built > with future compilers as well. Is "-Wa,arch=armv7-a+virt" (as we appear to do for a couple of files already) viable as a possibly cleaner alternative, or is GCC itself now policing the contents of inline asms? > Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84129 > Fixes: 33280b4cd1dc ("ARM: KVM: Add banked registers save/restore") > Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann > --- > arch/arm/kvm/hyp/Makefile | 5 +++++ > arch/arm/kvm/hyp/banked-sr.c | 4 ++++ > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/hyp/Makefile b/arch/arm/kvm/hyp/Makefile > index 5638ce0c9524..63d6b404d88e 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kvm/hyp/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/hyp/Makefile > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ ccflags-y += -fno-stack-protector -DDISABLE_BRANCH_PROFILING > > KVM=../../../../virt/kvm > > +CFLAGS_ARMV7VE :=$(call cc-option, -march=armv7ve) > + > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += $(KVM)/arm/hyp/vgic-v2-sr.o > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += $(KVM)/arm/hyp/vgic-v3-sr.o > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += $(KVM)/arm/hyp/timer-sr.o > @@ -15,7 +17,10 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += tlb.o > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += cp15-sr.o > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += vfp.o > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += banked-sr.o > +CFLAGS_banked-sr.o += $(CFLAGS_ARMV7VE) > + > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += entry.o > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += hyp-entry.o > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += switch.o > +CFLAGS_switch.o += $(CFLAGS_ARMV7VE) > obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += s2-setup.o > diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/hyp/banked-sr.c b/arch/arm/kvm/hyp/banked-sr.c > index 111bda8cdebd..be4b8b0a40ad 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kvm/hyp/banked-sr.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/hyp/banked-sr.c > @@ -20,6 +20,10 @@ > > #include > > +/* > + * gcc before 4.9 doesn't understand -march=armv7ve, so we have to > + * trick the assembler. > + */ > __asm__(".arch_extension virt"); Would it be worth wrapping this in a preprocessor check for compilers that won't understand the command-line flag? I believe LLVM tends to choke on these global asm statements entirely, so minimising exposure might be a good thing to do in general. Robin. > > void __hyp_text __banked_save_state(struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt) >