Re: [PATCH] x86: remove __phys_reloc_hide

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Aug 10 2010 - 03:06:25 EST



* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 08/09/2010 12:22 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 04:04:45PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >>> It hides the value conversion from the compiler through asm()
> >>>
> >>> -Andi
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, indeed. But for what? __pa_symbol() is just used to get the address
> >> of some linker symbols in forms of unsigned long which has same bit
> >> representation as pointer in x86 (and all supported archs). So do we
> >> still need it or am I missing something?
> >
> > The original reason was that the C standard allows the compiler
> > to make some assumptions on the pointer arithmetic that is done
> > on symbol addresses (e.g. no wrapping). This is exploited
> > by the optimizer in the compiler to generate better code.
> >
> > This lead to a miscompilation on PowerPC a couple of years back at
> > least with the va->pa conversion.
> >
> > After that RELOC_HIDE was introduced after funelling the
> > symbol address through an empty asm statement was recommended
> > as the official way to do this by the gcc developers.
> >
> > I think x86-64 does not normally wrap here, but it's
> > still safer to do it this way.
> >
>
> We pass -fno-strict-overflow to the kernel now, which takes care of the
> underlying problem, at least for current versions of gcc. Unfortunately
> we still have people who want to use very old gcc versions to compile
> the kernel, so it's probably better to leave it in at least until we
> formally kill off support for gcc 3.

Namhyung, mind sending a patch that adds a comment to __pa_symbol() to point
out the connection to -fno-strict-overflow and that it can be removed once all
supported versions of GCC understand -fno-strict-overflow?

That would make for one less piece of legacy voodoo code in the kernel ;-)

Thanks,

Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/