From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: use __builtin_trap() in BUG/WARN macros.
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:45:31 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190819154531.GM31406@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44a19633-f2a9-79f9-da7c-16ba64a66600@c-s.fr>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:05:46PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 19/08/2019 à 16:37, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 04:08:43PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >>Le 19/08/2019 à 15:23, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >>>On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 01:06:31PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >>>>Note that we keep using an assembly text using "twi 31, 0, 0" for
> >>>>inconditional traps because GCC drops all code after
> >>>>__builtin_trap() when the condition is always true at build time.
> >>>
> >>>As I said, it can also do this for conditional traps, if it can prove
> >>>the condition is always true.
> >>
> >>But we have another branch for 'always true' and 'always false' using
> >>__builtin_constant_p(), which don't use __builtin_trap(). Is there
> >>anything wrong with that ?:
> >
> >The compiler might not realise it is constant when it evaluates the
> >__builtin_constant_p, but only realises it later. As the documentation
> >for the builtin says:
> > A return of 0 does not indicate that the
> > value is _not_ a constant, but merely that GCC cannot prove it is a
> > constant with the specified value of the '-O' option.
>
> So you mean GCC would not be able to prove that
> __builtin_constant_p(cond) is always true but it would be able to prove
> that if (cond) is always true ?
Not sure what you mean, sorry.
> And isn't there a away to tell GCC that '__builtin_trap()' is
> recoverable in our case ?
No, GCC knows that a trap will never fall through.
> >I think it may work if you do
> >
> >#define BUG_ON(x) do { \
> > if (__builtin_constant_p(x)) { \
> > if (x) \
> > BUG(); \
> > } else { \
> > BUG_ENTRY("", 0); \
> > if (x) \
> > __builtin_trap(); \
> > } \
> >} while (0)
>
> It doesn't work:
You need to make a BUG_ENTRY so that it refers to the *following* trap
instruction, if you go this way.
> >I don't know how BUG_ENTRY works exactly.
>
> It's basic, maybe too basic: it adds an inline asm with a label, and
> adds a .long in the __bug_table section with the address of that label.
>
> When putting it after the __builtin_trap(), I changed it to using the
> address before the one of the label which is always the twxx instruction
> as far as I can see.
>
> #define BUG_ENTRY(insn, flags, ...) \
> __asm__ __volatile__( \
> "1: " insn "\n" \
> ".section __bug_table,\"aw\"\n" \
> "2:\t" PPC_LONG "1b, %0\n" \
> "\t.short %1, %2\n" \
> ".org 2b+%3\n" \
> ".previous\n" \
> : : "i" (__FILE__), "i" (__LINE__), \
> "i" (flags), \
> "i" (sizeof(struct bug_entry)), \
> ##__VA_ARGS__)
#define MY_BUG_ENTRY(lab, flags) \
__asm__ __volatile__( \
".section __bug_table,\"aw\"\n" \
"2:\t" PPC_LONG "%4, %0\n" \
"\t.short %1, %2\n" \
".org 2b+%3\n" \
".previous\n" \
: : "i" (__FILE__), "i" (__LINE__), \
"i" (flags), \
"i" (sizeof(struct bug_entry)), \
"i" (lab))
called as
#define BUG_ON(x) do { \
MY_BUG_ENTRY(&&lab, 0); \
lab: if (x) \
__builtin_trap(); \
} while (0)
not sure how reliable that works -- *if* it works, I just typed that in
without testing or anything -- but hopefully you get the idea.
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-19 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-19 13:06 [PATCH 1/3] powerpc: don't use __WARN() for WARN_ON() Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 13:06 ` [PATCH 2/3] powerpc: refactoring BUG/WARN macros Christophe Leroy
2019-11-25 10:46 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-08-19 13:06 ` [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: use __builtin_trap() in " Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 13:23 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-19 14:08 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 14:37 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-19 15:05 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 15:45 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2019-08-23 15:35 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-08-19 16:28 ` [PATCH 1/3] powerpc: don't use __WARN() for WARN_ON() Kees Cook
2019-08-19 17:29 ` Clean up cut-here even harder (was Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc: don't use __WARN() for WARN_ON()) Kees Cook
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=20190819154531.GM31406@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).