[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: copypage: do not use naked functions
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 07:27:43PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> It's hard to see what that commit was actually fixing, but the operands
> usage is wrong as explained already. Maybe the generated code has been
> OK for all those years but that is due to luck rather than correctness.
> No idea. Maybe Russell remembers?
> Maybe digging into the mailing list archive might tell.

I found this as a reply to the patch by Mikael Pettersson:

I've tested and verified that this bit enables a gcc-4.5 compiled kernel
to boot on TS-119 (Kirkwood) when combined with my fix for __naked.
With neither or only one of the patches applied, the kernel oopses hard
in copy_user_page() as it tries to start /sbin/init.
- the asm() bodies of these __naked functions have inadequate input
parameter constraints, in particular they fail to declare any
dependencies on the functions' formal parameters; gcc-4.5 sees this
and skips the parameter setup before calling these functions, causing
runtime crashes; Khem's patch (this one) fixes that
(copypage-xscale.c already had correct asm() constraints so it works
with only the __naked fix, these other copypage-*.c files need both
patches to work)

So, while wrong to the GCC manual, it's fixing a bug that is present
with gcc-4.5 and who-knows what other GCC versions. Reverting the
commit has the chance to cause regressions with GCC.

It looks like any change here needs to be validated on a range of
GCC versions, because there are versions of GCC known not to follow
it's manual!

RMK's Patch system:
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-16 10:34    [W:0.042 / U:40.820 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site