Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO

Nick Desaulniers
2020-07-07T17:17:42Z

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:56 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 08:51:07AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > > After spending some time debugging this with Nick, it looks like the
> > > error is caused by a recent optimization change in LLVM, which together
> > > with the inlining of ur_load_imm_any into jeq_imm, changes a runtime
> > > check in FIELD_FIT that would always fail, to a compile-time check that
> > > breaks the build. In jeq_imm, we have:
> > >
> > > /* struct bpf_insn: _s32 imm */
> > > u64 imm = insn->imm; /* sign extend */
> > > ...
> > > if (imm >> 32) { /* non-zero only if insn->imm is negative */
> > > /* inlined from ur_load_imm_any */
> > > u32 __imm = imm >> 32; /* therefore, always 0xffffffff */
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * __imm has a value known at compile-time, which means
> > > * __builtin_constant_p(__imm) is true and we end up with
> > > * essentially this in __BF_FIELD_CHECK:
> > > */
> > > if (__builtin_constant_p(__imm) && __imm > 255)
>
> I think FIELD_FIT() should not pass the value into __BF_FIELD_CHECK().
>
> So:
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> index 48ea093ff04c..4e035aca6f7e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@
> */
> #define FIELD_FIT(_mask, _val) \
> ({ \
> - __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_FIT: "); \
> + __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, 0ULL, "FIELD_FIT: "); \
> !((((typeof(_mask))_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & ~(_mask)); \
> })
>
> It's perfectly legal to pass a constant which does not fit, in which
> case FIELD_FIT() should just return false not break the build.
>
> Right?

I see the value of the __builtin_constant_p check; this is just a very
interesting case where rather than an integer literal appearing in the
source, the compiler is able to deduce that the parameter can only
have one value in one case, and allows __builtin_constant_p to
evaluate to true for it.

I had definitely asked Sami about the comment above FIELD_FIT:
"""
76 * Return: true if @_val can fit inside @_mask, false if @_val is
too big.
"""
in which FIELD_FIT doesn't return false if @_val is too big and a
compile time constant. (Rather it breaks the build).

Of the 14 expansion sites of FIELD_FIT I see in mainline, it doesn't
look like any integral literals are passed, so maybe the compile time
checks of _val are of little value for FIELD_FIT.

So I think your suggested diff is the most concise fix.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers