Re: [PATCH 3/3] riscv: fix __user annotation for __copy_user()

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:00:08 PDT (-0700), luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 12:01:37PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 14:42:12 PDT (-0700), luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 01:00:08PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 17:13:12 PDT (-0700), luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > I tried it and ... the preprocessed asm is as expected:
> > > > > 	.globl __asm_copy_to_user ; .balign 4 ; __asm_copy_to_user:
> > > > > 	.globl __asm_copy_from_user ; .balign 4 ; __asm_copy_from_user:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 	 li t6, 0x00040000
> > > > > 	 csrs sstatus, t6
> > > > > 	 ...
> > > > >
> > > > > But the nm -S returns different sizes for them:
> > > > > 	0000000000000004 000000000000006c T __asm_copy_from_user
> > > > > 	0000000000000002 000000000000006e T __asm_copy_to_user
> > > > >
> > > > > and the object code is:
> > > > > 	0000000000000000 <__asm_copy_to_user-0x2>:
> > > > > 	   0:   0001                    nop
> > > > >
> > > > > 	0000000000000002 <__asm_copy_to_user>:
> > > > > 	   2:   0001                    nop
> > > > >
> > > > > 	0000000000000004 <__asm_copy_from_user>:
> > > > > 	   4:   00040fb7                lui     t6,0x40
> > > > > 	   8:   100fa073                csrs    sstatus,t6
> > > > > 	   ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Why these unnneded nops?
> > > > > Is this a known problem of my toolchain (I use a plain gcc 7.3 +
> > > > > binutils 2.29, both configured as riscv64-none-elf)?
> > > > >
> > > > > If I remove the two ENTRY() and use instead:
> > > > > 	.globl __asm_copy_to_user ; __asm_copy_to_user:
> > > > > 	.globl __asm_copy_from_user ; __asm_copy_from_user:
> > > > > (IOW, I drop the .balign) then I get the expected result.
> > > > > But well, this seems unrelated to the double ENTRY.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't test it more for now because I've some link errors (which,
> > > > > I understand are probably solved in the riscv tree of binutils).
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll send you the patch anyway since, as far as I understand the changes
> > > > > specific to this copy_to/from_user is OK.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's probably a bug in binutils-2.29 that should be fixed by
> > > > 2.30 -- IIRC we had some bugs that looked like this and they got
> > > > fixed, though it might be just in master (so 2.31).
> > >
> > > I've tried binutils-2.30 and riscv-binutils-gdb, both still have
> > > the problem and master binutils-gdb doesn't compile for me.
> > > OTOH, everything is fine if I disabled CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C.
> >
> > OK, I'll try and figure out what's going on.  We've had a handful of
> > headaches trying to get things like '.align 2; .align 2' to actually produce
> > no NOPs for the second alignment directive, which is surprisingly
> > complicated due to the aggressive linker relaxation we do.
>
> OK. I imagine indeed but note that no linker is involved here so,
> if the problem is still present, it must already be in the assembler.

Ah, OK -- in that case then it's just not a bug.  In RISC-V land we handle 
alignment as part of relaxation in the linker, so if you're looking at the 
output of the assembler then you'll always see a bunch of NOPs for every 
alignment directive.  If you 'objdump -dr' you should be able to see the 
relocations that get emitted, there should be a R_RISCV_ALIGN that points to 
the run of NOPs.

> > > With this, the RISC-V arch should be sparse clean.
> > > I'll recheck after -rc1.
> >
> > This will be part of the PR that I tag today, so I anticipate it'll be in.
>
> Cool!
>
> -- Luc