memcpy regression

Michal Sojka sojkam1 at
Mon Sep 7 07:01:16 AEST 2015

On Sun, Sep 06 2015, Michal Sojka wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 06 2015, christophe leroy wrote:
>> Le 05/09/2015 02:08, Michal Sojka a écrit :
>>> On 4.9.2015 21:49, Michal Sojka wrote:
>>>> On 4.9.2015 20:10, christophe leroy wrote:
>>>>> Le 04/09/2015 16:35, Michal Sojka a écrit :
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 04 2015, Christophe LEROY wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 04/09/2015 15:33, Michal Sojka a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Dear Christophe,
>>>>>>>> my MPC5200-based system stopped booting recently. I bisected the 
>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>> to your commit below. If I revert that commit (on top of
>>>>>>>> 807249d3ada1ff28a47c4054ca4edd479421b671 = v4.2-6663-g807249d), my
>>>>>>>> system boots again.
>>>>>>> Do you use mainline code only, or do you have home-made code ?
>>>>>> I use mainline only sources with non-mainline device-tree.
>>>>>>> memcpy() is not supposed to be used on non-cacheable memory.
>>>>>>> memcpy_toio() is the function to use when copying to non-cacheble 
>>>>>>> area.
>>>>>>> When I submitted the patch, I looked for erroneous use of memcpy() 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> memset().
>>>>>>> I found one wrong use of memset() that I changed to memset_io() but I
>>>>>>> didn't find any misuse of memcpy().
>>>>>>> But I may have missed one.
>>>>>> I attach my .config, if it helps. I have there
>>>>>> CONFIG_PPC_MPC52xx=y
>>>>>> so arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx is probably the directory to look. 
>>>>>> Do you
>>>>>> see any mempcy misuse there?
>>>>> I only found one suspect use of memcpy() in 
>>>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/
>>>>> It is in mpc52xx_pm.c but it's linked to CONFIG_PM which is not 
>>>>> selected by your .config
>>>>> I'll check in the drivers selected by your .config
>>>>> In parallele, are you able to try with CONFIG_PPC_EARLY_DEBUG in 
>>>>> order to try and locate the blocking point ?
>>>> I don't get any output from the system even with CONFIG_PPC_EARLY_DEBUG.
>>> Hmm, there is no udbg console for MPC5200. I hacked something up and 
>>> the earliest place I was able to initialize it is after 
>>> early_init_devtree() in setup_32.c. Even with this console, I got no 
>>> output when the problematic patch was applied. So the problem is 
>>> somewhere earlier.
>> In early_init() in setup_32.c, there is the following comment:
>> /* First zero the BSS -- use memset_io, some platforms don't have caches 
>> on yet */
>> In that case, when does cache get activated ?
>> In move_device_tree(), called from early_init_devtree(), there is a call 
>> to memcpy().
>> Can you try replacing it by memcpy_io() ?
> I tried replacing it by memcpy_toio(), memcpy_fromio() and by
> generic_memcpy(). Nothing helped :(

I found the problem. The compiler replaces an assignment with a call to
memcpy. The following patch fixes the problem for me. However, I'm not
sure whether this is the real solution. I guess the compiler is free to
generate a call to memcpy wherever it wants so other compilers or other
optimization levels may need fixes at other places. What do others


From: Michal Sojka <sojkam1 at>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:44:55 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix unbootable system after memcpy optimization

This fixes the problem caused by commit
0b05e2d671c40cfb57e66e4e402320d6e056b2f8. On MPC5200, when using the
following version of GCC:

    powerpc-603e-linux-gnu-gcc (OSELAS.Toolchain-2012.12.1) 4.7.2

the system was ubootable.

Signed-off-by: Michal Sojka <sojkam1 at>
 arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c
index 7d80bfd..c2f1fba 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c
@@ -2121,7 +2121,7 @@ static struct cpu_spec * __init setup_cpu_spec(unsigned long offset,
 	old = *t;
 	/* Copy everything, then do fixups */
-	*t = *s;
+	memcpy_toio(t, s, sizeof(struct cpu_spec));
 	 * If we are overriding a previous value derived from the real

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list