[PATCH v4 1/2] powerpc/uaccess: Implement unsafe_put_user() using 'asm goto'

[Michael Ellerman]

Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel.crashing.org> writes:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:27:58AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy at c-s.fr> writes:
>> > unsafe_put_user() is designed to take benefit of 'asm goto'.
>> >
>> > Instead of using the standard __put_user() approach and branch
>> > based on the returned error, use 'asm goto' and make the
>> > exception code branch directly to the error label. There is
>> > no code anymore in the fixup section.
>> >
>> > This change significantly simplifies functions using
>> > unsafe_put_user()
>> >
>> ...
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy at c-s.fr>
>> > ---
>> >  arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> >  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> > index 9cc9c106ae2a..9365b59495a2 100644
>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> > @@ -196,6 +193,52 @@ do {								\
>> >  })
>> >  
>> >  
>> > +#define __put_user_asm_goto(x, addr, label, op)			\
>> > +	asm volatile goto(					\
>> > +		"1:	" op "%U1%X1 %0,%1	# put_user\n"	\
>> > +		EX_TABLE(1b, %l2)				\
>> > +		:						\
>> > +		: "r" (x), "m<>" (*addr)				\
>> 
>> The "m<>" here is breaking GCC 4.6.3, which we allegedly still support.
>
> [ You shouldn't use 4.6.3, there has been 4.6.4 since a while.  And 4.6
>   is nine years old now.  Most projects do not support < 4.8 anymore, on
>   any architecture.  ]

Moving up to 4.6.4 wouldn't actually help with this though would it?

Also I have 4.6.3 compilers already built, I don't really have time to
rebuild them for 4.6.4.

The kernel has a top-level minimum version, which I'm not in charge of, see:

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/changes.html?highlight=gcc


There were discussions about making 4.8 the minimum, but I'm not sure
where they got to.

>> Plain "m" works, how much does the "<>" affect code gen in practice?
>> 
>> A quick diff here shows no difference from removing "<>".
>
> It will make it impossible to use update-form instructions here.  That
> probably does not matter much at all, in this case.
>
> If you remove the "<>" constraints, also remove the "%Un" output modifier?

So like this?

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 62cc8d7640ec..ca847aed8e45 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -207,10 +207,10 @@ do {								\
 
 #define __put_user_asm_goto(x, addr, label, op)			\
 	asm volatile goto(					\
-		"1:	" op "%U1%X1 %0,%1	# put_user\n"	\
+		"1:	" op "%X1 %0,%1	# put_user\n"		\
 		EX_TABLE(1b, %l2)				\
 		:						\
-		: "r" (x), "m<>" (*addr)				\
+		: "r" (x), "m" (*addr)				\
 		:						\
 		: label)
 


cheers