| Message ID | 20201028080433.26799-1-ardb@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | a7223f5bfcaeade4a86d35263493bcda6c940891 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | powerpc: avoid broken GCC __attribute__((optimize)) | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| snowpatch_ozlabs/apply_patch | success | Successfully applied on branch powerpc/merge (8cb17737940b156329cb5210669b9c9b23f4dd56) |
| snowpatch_ozlabs/build-ppc64le | fail | Build failed! |
| snowpatch_ozlabs/build-ppc64be | fail | Build failed! |
| snowpatch_ozlabs/build-ppc64e | fail | Build failed! |
| snowpatch_ozlabs/build-pmac32 | success | Build succeeded |
| snowpatch_ozlabs/checkpatch | success | |
| snowpatch_ozlabs/needsstable | warning | Please consider tagging this patch for stable! |
Thanks for your contribution, unfortunately we've found some issues.
Your patch was successfully applied on branch powerpc/merge (8cb17737940b156329cb5210669b9c9b23f4dd56)
The test build-ppc64le reported the following: Build failed!
Full log: https://openpower.xyz/job/snowpatch/job/snowpatch-linux-sparse/21048//artifact/linux/report.txt
Here's a preview of the log:
arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c:244:25: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before 'setup_paca'
244 | void __nostackprotector setup_paca(struct paca_struct *new_paca)
| ^~~~~~~~~~
make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:283: arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:500: arch/powerpc/kernel] Error 2
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make: *** [Makefile:1799: arch/powerpc] Error 2
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
The test build-ppc64be reported the following: Build failed!
Full log: https://openpower.xyz/job/snowpatch/job/snowpatch-linux-sparse/21049//artifact/linux/report.txt
Here's a preview of the log:
arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c:244:25: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before 'setup_paca'
244 | void __nostackprotector setup_paca(struct paca_struct *new_paca)
| ^~~~~~~~~~
make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:283: arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:500: arch/powerpc/kernel] Error 2
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make: *** [Makefile:1799: arch/powerpc] Error 2
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
The test build-ppc64e reported the following: Build failed!
Full log: https://openpower.xyz/job/snowpatch/job/snowpatch-linux-sparse/21050//artifact/linux/report.txt
Here's a preview of the log:
arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c:244:25: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before 'setup_paca'
244 | void __nostackprotector setup_paca(struct paca_struct *new_paca)
| ^~~~~~~~~~
make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:283: arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:500: arch/powerpc/kernel] Error 2
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make: *** [Makefile:1799: arch/powerpc] Error 2
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 09:04, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote: > > Commit 7053f80d9696 ("powerpc/64: Prevent stack protection in early boot") > introduced a couple of uses of __attribute__((optimize)) with function > scope, to disable the stack protector in some early boot code. > > Unfortunately, and this is documented in the GCC man pages [0], overriding > function attributes for optimization is broken, and is only supported for > debug scenarios, not for production: the problem appears to be that > setting GCC -f flags using this method will cause it to forget about some > or all other optimization settings that have been applied. > > So the only safe way to disable the stack protector is to disable it for > the entire source file. > > [0] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html > > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> > Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> > Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> > Cc: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> > Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > Fixes: 7053f80d9696 ("powerpc/64: Prevent stack protection in early boot") > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> > --- > Related discussion here: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAMuHMdUg0WJHEcq6to0-eODpXPOywLot6UD2=GFHpzoj_hCoBQ@mail.gmail.com/ > > TL;DR using __attribute__((optimize("-fno-gcse"))) in the BPF interpreter > causes the compiler to forget about -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables passed > on the command line, resulting in unexpected .eh_frame sections in vmlinux. > > arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile | 3 +++ > arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c | 2 +- > arch/powerpc/kernel/setup.h | 6 ------ > arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c | 2 +- > 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > FYI i was notified by one of the robots that I missed one occurrence of __nostackprotector in arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c Let me know if I need to resend. > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile b/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile > index bf0bf1b900d2..fe2ef598e2ea 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile > @@ -173,6 +173,9 @@ KCOV_INSTRUMENT_cputable.o := n > KCOV_INSTRUMENT_setup_64.o := n > KCOV_INSTRUMENT_paca.o := n > > +CFLAGS_setup_64.o += -fno-stack-protector > +CFLAGS_paca.o += -fno-stack-protector > + > extra-$(CONFIG_PPC_FPU) += fpu.o > extra-$(CONFIG_ALTIVEC) += vector.o > extra-$(CONFIG_PPC64) += entry_64.o > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c > index 0ad15768d762..fe70834d7283 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c > @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static struct rtas_args * __init new_rtas_args(int cpu, unsigned long limit) > struct paca_struct **paca_ptrs __read_mostly; > EXPORT_SYMBOL(paca_ptrs); > > -void __init __nostackprotector initialise_paca(struct paca_struct *new_paca, int cpu) > +void __init initialise_paca(struct paca_struct *new_paca, int cpu) > { > #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES > new_paca->lppaca_ptr = NULL; > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup.h b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup.h > index 2ec835574cc9..2dd0d9cb5a20 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup.h > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup.h > @@ -8,12 +8,6 @@ > #ifndef __ARCH_POWERPC_KERNEL_SETUP_H > #define __ARCH_POWERPC_KERNEL_SETUP_H > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG > -#define __nostackprotector > -#else > -#define __nostackprotector __attribute__((__optimize__("no-stack-protector"))) > -#endif > - > void initialize_cache_info(void); > void irqstack_early_init(void); > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c > index bb9cab3641d7..da447a62ea1e 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c > @@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ void __init record_spr_defaults(void) > * device-tree is not accessible via normal means at this point. > */ > > -void __init __nostackprotector early_setup(unsigned long dt_ptr) > +void __init early_setup(unsigned long dt_ptr) > { > static __initdata struct paca_struct boot_paca; > > -- > 2.17.1 >
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> writes: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 09:04, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> Commit 7053f80d9696 ("powerpc/64: Prevent stack protection in early boot") >> introduced a couple of uses of __attribute__((optimize)) with function >> scope, to disable the stack protector in some early boot code. >> >> Unfortunately, and this is documented in the GCC man pages [0], overriding >> function attributes for optimization is broken, and is only supported for >> debug scenarios, not for production: the problem appears to be that >> setting GCC -f flags using this method will cause it to forget about some >> or all other optimization settings that have been applied. >> >> So the only safe way to disable the stack protector is to disable it for >> the entire source file. >> >> [0] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html >> >> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> >> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> >> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> >> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> >> Cc: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> >> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> >> Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> >> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> >> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> >> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> >> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> >> Fixes: 7053f80d9696 ("powerpc/64: Prevent stack protection in early boot") >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> >> --- >> Related discussion here: >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAMuHMdUg0WJHEcq6to0-eODpXPOywLot6UD2=GFHpzoj_hCoBQ@mail.gmail.com/ >> >> TL;DR using __attribute__((optimize("-fno-gcse"))) in the BPF interpreter >> causes the compiler to forget about -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables passed >> on the command line, resulting in unexpected .eh_frame sections in vmlinux. >> >> arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile | 3 +++ >> arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c | 2 +- >> arch/powerpc/kernel/setup.h | 6 ------ >> arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c | 2 +- >> 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) Thanks for the patch. > FYI i was notified by one of the robots that I missed one occurrence > of __nostackprotector in arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c > > Let me know if I need to resend. That's fine I'll fix it up when applying. With the existing code, with STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG=y, I see two functions in setup_64.c that are triggering stack protection. One is __init, and the other takes no parameters and is not easily reachable from userspace, so I don't think losing the stack canary on either of those is a concern. I don't see anything in paca.c triggering stack protection. I don't think there's any evidence this is causing a bug for us, so I'll plan to put this in next for v5.11. cheers
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:04:33 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > Commit 7053f80d9696 ("powerpc/64: Prevent stack protection in early boot") > introduced a couple of uses of __attribute__((optimize)) with function > scope, to disable the stack protector in some early boot code. > > Unfortunately, and this is documented in the GCC man pages [0], overriding > function attributes for optimization is broken, and is only supported for > debug scenarios, not for production: the problem appears to be that > setting GCC -f flags using this method will cause it to forget about some > or all other optimization settings that have been applied. > > [...] Applied to powerpc/next. [1/1] powerpc: Avoid broken GCC __attribute__((optimize)) https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/a7223f5bfcaeade4a86d35263493bcda6c940891 cheers
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile b/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile index bf0bf1b900d2..fe2ef598e2ea 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile @@ -173,6 +173,9 @@ KCOV_INSTRUMENT_cputable.o := n KCOV_INSTRUMENT_setup_64.o := n KCOV_INSTRUMENT_paca.o := n +CFLAGS_setup_64.o += -fno-stack-protector +CFLAGS_paca.o += -fno-stack-protector + extra-$(CONFIG_PPC_FPU) += fpu.o extra-$(CONFIG_ALTIVEC) += vector.o extra-$(CONFIG_PPC64) += entry_64.o diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c index 0ad15768d762..fe70834d7283 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static struct rtas_args * __init new_rtas_args(int cpu, unsigned long limit) struct paca_struct **paca_ptrs __read_mostly; EXPORT_SYMBOL(paca_ptrs); -void __init __nostackprotector initialise_paca(struct paca_struct *new_paca, int cpu) +void __init initialise_paca(struct paca_struct *new_paca, int cpu) { #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES new_paca->lppaca_ptr = NULL; diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup.h b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup.h index 2ec835574cc9..2dd0d9cb5a20 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup.h @@ -8,12 +8,6 @@ #ifndef __ARCH_POWERPC_KERNEL_SETUP_H #define __ARCH_POWERPC_KERNEL_SETUP_H -#ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG -#define __nostackprotector -#else -#define __nostackprotector __attribute__((__optimize__("no-stack-protector"))) -#endif - void initialize_cache_info(void); void irqstack_early_init(void); diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c index bb9cab3641d7..da447a62ea1e 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c @@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ void __init record_spr_defaults(void) * device-tree is not accessible via normal means at this point. */ -void __init __nostackprotector early_setup(unsigned long dt_ptr) +void __init early_setup(unsigned long dt_ptr) { static __initdata struct paca_struct boot_paca;
Commit 7053f80d9696 ("powerpc/64: Prevent stack protection in early boot") introduced a couple of uses of __attribute__((optimize)) with function scope, to disable the stack protector in some early boot code. Unfortunately, and this is documented in the GCC man pages [0], overriding function attributes for optimization is broken, and is only supported for debug scenarios, not for production: the problem appears to be that setting GCC -f flags using this method will cause it to forget about some or all other optimization settings that have been applied. So the only safe way to disable the stack protector is to disable it for the entire source file. [0] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Fixes: 7053f80d9696 ("powerpc/64: Prevent stack protection in early boot") Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> --- Related discussion here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAMuHMdUg0WJHEcq6to0-eODpXPOywLot6UD2=GFHpzoj_hCoBQ@mail.gmail.com/ TL;DR using __attribute__((optimize("-fno-gcse"))) in the BPF interpreter causes the compiler to forget about -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables passed on the command line, resulting in unexpected .eh_frame sections in vmlinux. arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile | 3 +++ arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c | 2 +- arch/powerpc/kernel/setup.h | 6 ------ arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c | 2 +- 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)