Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10

[Nick Desaulniers]

Ah seems we do have __attribute__((no_selector))
(https://reviews.llvm.org/D46300,
https://releases.llvm.org/7.0.0/tools/clang/docs/AttributeReference.html#no-stack-protector-clang-no-stack-protector-clang-no-stack-protector)
which differs from GCC attribute name.

I'm still catching up on the thread (and my cat is insistent about
sleeping on my lap while I'm trying to use my laptop), but I like
20200417190607.GY2424@tucnak/T/#m23d197d3a66a6c7d04c5444af4f51d940895b412">https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200417190607.GY2424@tucnak/T/#m23d197d3a66a6c7d04c5444af4f51d940895b412
if it additionally defined __no_stack_protector for compiler-clang.h.

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:06 PM Jakub Jelinek <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:22:25AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > Sorry, I don't quite follow.  The idea is that an empty asm statement
> > > in foo() should prevent foo() from being inlined into bar()?
> >
> > s/inlined/tail called/
>
> Yeah.  The thing is, the caller changes the stack protector guard base
> value, so at the start of the function it saves a different value then
> it compares at the end.  But, the function that it calls at the end
> actually doesn't return, so this isn't a problem.
> If it is tail called though, the stack protector guard checking is done
> before the tail call and it crashes.
> If the called function is marked with noreturn attribute or _Noreturn,
> at least GCC will also not tail call it and all is fine, but not sure
> what LLVM does in that case.

Seems fine? https://godbolt.org/z/VEoEfw
(try commenting out the __attribute__((noreturn)) to observe the tail calls.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers