From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"# 3.4.x" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@wedev4u.fr>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: cfi: convert inline functions to macros
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:25:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171218172546.56922b38@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <63bc4b60-ca3f-2895-b202-cabd9a14e3ca@gmail.com>
Hi Marek,
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:38:20 +0100
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/18/2017 11:29 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/18/2017 10:16 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
> >>>> Am Mittwoch, 11. Oktober 2017, 15:54:10 CET schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> >>>>> The map_word_() functions, dating back to linux-2.6.8, try to perform
> >>>>> bitwise operations on a 'map_word' structure. This may have worked
> >>>>> with compilers that were current then (gcc-3.4 or earlier), but end
> >>>>> up being rather inefficient on any version I could try now (gcc-4.4 or
> >>>>> higher). Specifically we hit a problem analyzed in gcc PR81715 where we
> >>>>> fail to reuse the stack space for local variables.
> > ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With the latest gcc-8 snapshot, the problem is fixed in upstream gcc,
> >>>>> but nobody uses that yet, so we should still work around it in mainline
> >>>>> kernels and probably backport the workaround to stable kernels as well.
> >>>>> We had a couple of other functions that suffered from the same gcc bug,
> >>>>> and all of those had a simpler workaround involving dummy variables
> >>>>> in the inline function. Unfortunately that did not work here, the
> >>>>> macro hack was the best I could come up with.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would also be helpful to have someone to a little performance testing
> >>>>> on the patch, to see how much it helps in terms of CPU utilitzation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81715
> >>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >>>>
> >>>> Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>>> Marek, I know you are not super happy with this patch but IMHO this is the
> >>>> solution with the least hassle.
> >>>> While functions offer better type checking I think this functions are trivial
> >>>> enough to exist as macros too.
> >>>> Also forcing users to upgrade/fix their compilers is only possible in a
> >>>> perfect world.
> >>>
> >>> Right. To clarify, this is a potential security issue, as it might be used to
> >>> construct a stack overflow to cause privilege escalation when combined
> >>> with some other vulnerabilities. I'd definitely want this backported to
> >>> stable kernels as a precaution, and I'm preparing a patch to warn
> >>> about this kind of problem again in 'allmodconfig' kernels that
> >>> currently disable the warning on arm64 and x86.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the compiler instead ?
> >> This still feels like we're fixing a bug at the wrong place ...
> >
> > See above: the compiler is fixed in the gcc-8.x release branch,
> > which won't be out until next spring. People use all kinds of versions
> > as old as gcc-4.3, even if the fix was backported to older compilers
> > (which it is not), most users never rebuild their toolchains to get the
> > latest bugfix releases.
> >
> > For instance, the Android SDK comes with prebuilt binaries of
> > a gcc-4.9-prerelease version that has many known bugs that
> > were fixed either by the time the official 4.9 release happened,
> > or in one of the bugfix releases following it.
>
> But doesn't this mean we're taking the OpenSSL path (which didn't work
> out well for them IIRC) ?
>
> I don't have a better solution for this though ...
>
I know you don't like this solution, but until you propose a real
alternative I decided to apply it. If you come up with something
better, I'll consider reverting this patch and applying yours.
Regards,
Boris
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-18 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-11 13:54 [PATCH] mtd: cfi: convert inline functions to macros Arnd Bergmann
2017-10-11 21:34 ` Marek Vasut
2017-12-17 8:43 ` Boris Brezillon
2017-12-17 19:34 ` Marek Vasut
2017-12-17 20:34 ` Richard Weinberger
2017-12-18 9:16 ` Arnd Bergmann
2017-12-18 9:18 ` Marek Vasut
2017-12-18 10:29 ` Arnd Bergmann
2017-12-18 10:38 ` Marek Vasut
2017-12-18 16:25 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
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=20171218172546.56922b38@bbrezillon \
--to=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=cyrille.pitchen@wedev4u.fr \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.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