| Message ID | 20240725105634.16825-1-roger.pau@citrix.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | x86/altcall: further refine clang workaround | expand |
On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); > * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 > */ > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > - register union { \ > - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > - unsigned long r; \ > + register struct { \ > + typeof(arg) e; \ > + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to get rid of. I was wondering whether we could get away resorting to bitfields, as those are well-defined when having a width of zero: register struct { \ typeof(arg) e; \ unsigned long pad:(sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)) * 8; \ } ... Yet when the width is zero, the field may not have name, whereas when the field uniformly doesn't have a name, Clang would, like also for register struct { \ typeof(arg) e; \ unsigned long :0; \ } ... regards that space as not needing any (re)init. Bottom line: For the moment I'm out of ideas. Jan
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > > @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); > > * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 > > */ > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > - register union { \ > > - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > > - unsigned long r; \ > > + register struct { \ > > + typeof(arg) e; \ > > + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ > > One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot > to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == > sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to > get rid of. I wondered about this, but I though it was only [] that we were trying to get rid of, not [0]. > I was wondering whether we could get away resorting to bitfields, as those > are well-defined when having a width of zero: > > register struct { \ > typeof(arg) e; \ > unsigned long pad:(sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)) * 8; \ > } ... > > Yet when the width is zero, the field may not have name, whereas when the > field uniformly doesn't have a name, Clang would, like also for > > register struct { \ > typeof(arg) e; \ > unsigned long :0; \ > } ... > > regards that space as not needing any (re)init. Bottom line: For the > moment I'm out of ideas. Hm, I see. I don't have any good ideas right now either. Will put it on the back burner and pick up later, already too much on my plate right now to be playing clang games. Thanks for your input. Roger.
On 25.07.2024 16:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h >>> @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); >>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 >>> */ >>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ >>> - register union { \ >>> - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ >>> - unsigned long r; \ >>> + register struct { \ >>> + typeof(arg) e; \ >>> + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ >> >> One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot >> to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == >> sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to >> get rid of. > > I wondered about this, but I though it was only [] that we were trying > to get rid of, not [0]. Sadly (here) it's actually the other way around, aiui. Jan
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:00:22PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 25.07.2024 16:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > >>> @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); > >>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 > >>> */ > >>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > >>> - register union { \ > >>> - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > >>> - unsigned long r; \ > >>> + register struct { \ > >>> + typeof(arg) e; \ > >>> + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ > >> > >> One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot > >> to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == > >> sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to > >> get rid of. > > > > I wondered about this, but I though it was only [] that we were trying > > to get rid of, not [0]. > > Sadly (here) it's actually the other way around, aiui. The only other option I have in mind is using an oversized array on the union, like: #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ union { \ typeof(arg) e[(sizeof(long) + sizeof(arg) - 1) / sizeof(arg)]; \ unsigned long r; \ } a ## n ## __ = { \ .e[0] = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); })\ }; \ register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = \ a ## n ## __.r Regards, Roger.
On 26.07.2024 09:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:00:22PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 25.07.2024 16:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h >>>>> @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); >>>>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 >>>>> */ >>>>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ >>>>> - register union { \ >>>>> - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ >>>>> - unsigned long r; \ >>>>> + register struct { \ >>>>> + typeof(arg) e; \ >>>>> + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ >>>> >>>> One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot >>>> to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == >>>> sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to >>>> get rid of. >>> >>> I wondered about this, but I though it was only [] that we were trying >>> to get rid of, not [0]. >> >> Sadly (here) it's actually the other way around, aiui. > > The only other option I have in mind is using an oversized array on > the union, like: > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > union { \ > typeof(arg) e[(sizeof(long) + sizeof(arg) - 1) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > unsigned long r; \ > } a ## n ## __ = { \ > .e[0] = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); })\ > }; \ > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = \ > a ## n ## __.r Yet that's likely awful code-gen wise? For the time being, can we perhaps just tighten the BUILD_BUG_ON(), as iirc Alejandro had suggested? Jan
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:36:15AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 26.07.2024 09:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:00:22PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 25.07.2024 16:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > >>>>> @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); > >>>>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 > >>>>> */ > >>>>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > >>>>> - register union { \ > >>>>> - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > >>>>> - unsigned long r; \ > >>>>> + register struct { \ > >>>>> + typeof(arg) e; \ > >>>>> + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ > >>>> > >>>> One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot > >>>> to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == > >>>> sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to > >>>> get rid of. > >>> > >>> I wondered about this, but I though it was only [] that we were trying > >>> to get rid of, not [0]. > >> > >> Sadly (here) it's actually the other way around, aiui. > > > > The only other option I have in mind is using an oversized array on > > the union, like: > > > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > union { \ > > typeof(arg) e[(sizeof(long) + sizeof(arg) - 1) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > > unsigned long r; \ > > } a ## n ## __ = { \ > > .e[0] = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); })\ > > }; \ > > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = \ > > a ## n ## __.r > > Yet that's likely awful code-gen wise? Seems OK: https://godbolt.org/z/nsdo5Gs8W > For the time being, can we perhaps > just tighten the BUILD_BUG_ON(), as iirc Alejandro had suggested? My main concern with tightening the BUILD_BUG_ON() is that then I would also like to do so for the GCC one, so that build fails uniformly. Thanks, Roger.
On 26.07.2024 09:52, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:36:15AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 26.07.2024 09:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:00:22PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 25.07.2024 16:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h >>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h >>>>>>> @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); >>>>>>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 >>>>>>> */ >>>>>>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ >>>>>>> - register union { \ >>>>>>> - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ >>>>>>> - unsigned long r; \ >>>>>>> + register struct { \ >>>>>>> + typeof(arg) e; \ >>>>>>> + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ >>>>>> >>>>>> One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot >>>>>> to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == >>>>>> sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to >>>>>> get rid of. >>>>> >>>>> I wondered about this, but I though it was only [] that we were trying >>>>> to get rid of, not [0]. >>>> >>>> Sadly (here) it's actually the other way around, aiui. >>> >>> The only other option I have in mind is using an oversized array on >>> the union, like: >>> >>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ >>> union { \ >>> typeof(arg) e[(sizeof(long) + sizeof(arg) - 1) / sizeof(arg)]; \ >>> unsigned long r; \ >>> } a ## n ## __ = { \ >>> .e[0] = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); })\ >>> }; \ >>> register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = \ >>> a ## n ## __.r >> >> Yet that's likely awful code-gen wise? > > Seems OK: https://godbolt.org/z/nsdo5Gs8W In which case why not go this route. If the compiler is doing fine with that, maybe the array dimension expression could be further simplified, accepting yet more over-sizing? Like "sizeof(void *) / sizeof (arg) + 1" or even simply "sizeof(void *)"? Suitably commented of course ... >> For the time being, can we perhaps >> just tighten the BUILD_BUG_ON(), as iirc Alejandro had suggested? > > My main concern with tightening the BUILD_BUG_ON() is that then I > would also like to do so for the GCC one, so that build fails > uniformly. If we were to take that route, then yes, probably should constrain both (with a suitable comment on the gcc one). Jan
On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 9:05 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 26.07.2024 09:52, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:36:15AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 26.07.2024 09:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:00:22PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 25.07.2024 16:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>>> On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > >>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > >>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > >>>>>>> @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); > >>>>>>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 > >>>>>>> */ > >>>>>>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > >>>>>>> - register union { \ > >>>>>>> - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > >>>>>>> - unsigned long r; \ > >>>>>>> + register struct { \ > >>>>>>> + typeof(arg) e; \ > >>>>>>> + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot > >>>>>> to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == > >>>>>> sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to > >>>>>> get rid of. > >>>>> > >>>>> I wondered about this, but I though it was only [] that we were trying > >>>>> to get rid of, not [0]. > >>>> > >>>> Sadly (here) it's actually the other way around, aiui. > >>> > >>> The only other option I have in mind is using an oversized array on > >>> the union, like: > >>> > >>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > >>> union { \ > >>> typeof(arg) e[(sizeof(long) + sizeof(arg) - 1) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > >>> unsigned long r; \ > >>> } a ## n ## __ = { \ > >>> .e[0] = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); })\ > >>> }; \ > >>> register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = \ > >>> a ## n ## __.r > >> > >> Yet that's likely awful code-gen wise? > > > > Seems OK: https://godbolt.org/z/nsdo5Gs8W > > In which case why not go this route. If the compiler is doing fine with > that, maybe the array dimension expression could be further simplified, > accepting yet more over-sizing? Like "sizeof(void *) / sizeof (arg) + 1" > or even simply "sizeof(void *)"? Suitably commented of course ... > > >> For the time being, can we perhaps > >> just tighten the BUILD_BUG_ON(), as iirc Alejandro had suggested? > > > > My main concern with tightening the BUILD_BUG_ON() is that then I > > would also like to do so for the GCC one, so that build fails > > uniformly. > > If we were to take that route, then yes, probably should constrain both > (with a suitable comment on the gcc one). > > Jan Yet another way would be to have an intermediate `long` to cast onto. Compilers will optimise away the copy. It ignores the different-type aliasing rules in the C spec, so there's an assumption that we have -fno-strict-aliasing. But I belive we do? Otherwise it should pretty much work on anything. ``` #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ unsigned long __tmp = 0; \ *(typeof(arg) *)&__tmp = \ ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); }) \ register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = __tmp; \ ``` fwiw, clang18 emits identical code compared with the previous godbolt link. Link: https://godbolt.org/z/facd1M9xa Cheers, Alejandro
On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 3:17 PM BST, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 9:05 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 26.07.2024 09:52, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:36:15AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >> On 26.07.2024 09:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:00:22PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >>>> On 25.07.2024 16:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >>>>>> On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > >>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > > >>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > > >>>>>>> @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); > > >>>>>>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 > > >>>>>>> */ > > >>>>>>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > >>>>>>> - register union { \ > > >>>>>>> - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > > >>>>>>> - unsigned long r; \ > > >>>>>>> + register struct { \ > > >>>>>>> + typeof(arg) e; \ > > >>>>>>> + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot > > >>>>>> to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == > > >>>>>> sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to > > >>>>>> get rid of. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I wondered about this, but I though it was only [] that we were trying > > >>>>> to get rid of, not [0]. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sadly (here) it's actually the other way around, aiui. > > >>> > > >>> The only other option I have in mind is using an oversized array on > > >>> the union, like: > > >>> > > >>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > >>> union { \ > > >>> typeof(arg) e[(sizeof(long) + sizeof(arg) - 1) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > > >>> unsigned long r; \ > > >>> } a ## n ## __ = { \ > > >>> .e[0] = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); })\ > > >>> }; \ > > >>> register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = \ > > >>> a ## n ## __.r > > >> > > >> Yet that's likely awful code-gen wise? > > > > > > Seems OK: https://godbolt.org/z/nsdo5Gs8W > > > > In which case why not go this route. If the compiler is doing fine with > > that, maybe the array dimension expression could be further simplified, > > accepting yet more over-sizing? Like "sizeof(void *) / sizeof (arg) + 1" > > or even simply "sizeof(void *)"? Suitably commented of course ... > > > > >> For the time being, can we perhaps > > >> just tighten the BUILD_BUG_ON(), as iirc Alejandro had suggested? > > > > > > My main concern with tightening the BUILD_BUG_ON() is that then I > > > would also like to do so for the GCC one, so that build fails > > > uniformly. > > > > If we were to take that route, then yes, probably should constrain both > > (with a suitable comment on the gcc one). > > > > Jan > > Yet another way would be to have an intermediate `long` to cast onto. Compilers > will optimise away the copy. It ignores the different-type aliasing rules in > the C spec, so there's an assumption that we have -fno-strict-aliasing. But I > belive we do? Otherwise it should pretty much work on anything. > > ``` > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > unsigned long __tmp = 0; \ > *(typeof(arg) *)&__tmp = \ > ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); }) \ > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = __tmp; \ > ``` > > fwiw, clang18 emits identical code compared with the previous godbolt link. > > Link: https://godbolt.org/z/facd1M9xa > > Cheers, > Alejandro Bah. s/b/__tmp/ in line15. Same output though, so the point still stands. Cheers, Alejandro
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 03:25:08PM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 3:17 PM BST, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 9:05 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > On 26.07.2024 09:52, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:36:15AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > >> On 26.07.2024 09:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:00:22PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > >>>> On 25.07.2024 16:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > >>>>>> On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > > >>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > > > >>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > > > >>>>>>> @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); > > > >>>>>>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 > > > >>>>>>> */ > > > >>>>>>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > > >>>>>>> - register union { \ > > > >>>>>>> - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > > > >>>>>>> - unsigned long r; \ > > > >>>>>>> + register struct { \ > > > >>>>>>> + typeof(arg) e; \ > > > >>>>>>> + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot > > > >>>>>> to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == > > > >>>>>> sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to > > > >>>>>> get rid of. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I wondered about this, but I though it was only [] that we were trying > > > >>>>> to get rid of, not [0]. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Sadly (here) it's actually the other way around, aiui. > > > >>> > > > >>> The only other option I have in mind is using an oversized array on > > > >>> the union, like: > > > >>> > > > >>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > > >>> union { \ > > > >>> typeof(arg) e[(sizeof(long) + sizeof(arg) - 1) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > > > >>> unsigned long r; \ > > > >>> } a ## n ## __ = { \ > > > >>> .e[0] = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); })\ > > > >>> }; \ > > > >>> register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = \ > > > >>> a ## n ## __.r > > > >> > > > >> Yet that's likely awful code-gen wise? > > > > > > > > Seems OK: https://godbolt.org/z/nsdo5Gs8W > > > > > > In which case why not go this route. If the compiler is doing fine with > > > that, maybe the array dimension expression could be further simplified, > > > accepting yet more over-sizing? Like "sizeof(void *) / sizeof (arg) + 1" > > > or even simply "sizeof(void *)"? Suitably commented of course ... > > > > > > >> For the time being, can we perhaps > > > >> just tighten the BUILD_BUG_ON(), as iirc Alejandro had suggested? > > > > > > > > My main concern with tightening the BUILD_BUG_ON() is that then I > > > > would also like to do so for the GCC one, so that build fails > > > > uniformly. > > > > > > If we were to take that route, then yes, probably should constrain both > > > (with a suitable comment on the gcc one). > > > > > > Jan > > > > Yet another way would be to have an intermediate `long` to cast onto. Compilers > > will optimise away the copy. It ignores the different-type aliasing rules in > > the C spec, so there's an assumption that we have -fno-strict-aliasing. But I > > belive we do? Otherwise it should pretty much work on anything. > > > > ``` > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > unsigned long __tmp = 0; \ > > *(typeof(arg) *)&__tmp = \ > > ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); }) \ > > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = __tmp; \ > > ``` > > > > fwiw, clang18 emits identical code compared with the previous godbolt link. > > > > Link: https://godbolt.org/z/facd1M9xa > > > > Cheers, > > Alejandro > > Bah. s/b/__tmp/ in line15. Same output though, so the point still stands. Had to adjust it to: #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ unsigned long a ## n ## __ = 0; \ *(typeof(arg) *)&a ## n ## __ = \ ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); }); \ register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = a ## n ## __ So that tmp__ is not defined multiple times for repeated ALT_CALL_ARG() usages. Already tried something like this in the past, but it mixes code with declarations, and that's forbidden in the current C standard that Xen uses: ./arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/hvm.h:665:5: error: mixing declarations and code is incompatible with standards before C99 [-Werror,-Wdeclaration-after-statement] The `*(typeof(arg) *)&__tmp = ...` line is considered code, and is followed by further declarations. Even if we moved both declarations ahead of the assigns it would still complain when multiple ALT_CALL_ARG() instances are used in the same altcall block. Thanks, Roger.
On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 4:18 PM BST, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 03:25:08PM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 3:17 PM BST, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > > On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 9:05 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 26.07.2024 09:52, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:36:15AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > >> On 26.07.2024 09:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:00:22PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > >>>> On 25.07.2024 16:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > >>>>>> On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > > > > >>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > > > > >>>>>>> @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); > > > > >>>>>>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 > > > > >>>>>>> */ > > > > >>>>>>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > > > >>>>>>> - register union { \ > > > > >>>>>>> - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > > > > >>>>>>> - unsigned long r; \ > > > > >>>>>>> + register struct { \ > > > > >>>>>>> + typeof(arg) e; \ > > > > >>>>>>> + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot > > > > >>>>>> to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == > > > > >>>>>> sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to > > > > >>>>>> get rid of. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I wondered about this, but I though it was only [] that we were trying > > > > >>>>> to get rid of, not [0]. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Sadly (here) it's actually the other way around, aiui. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The only other option I have in mind is using an oversized array on > > > > >>> the union, like: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > > > >>> union { \ > > > > >>> typeof(arg) e[(sizeof(long) + sizeof(arg) - 1) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > > > > >>> unsigned long r; \ > > > > >>> } a ## n ## __ = { \ > > > > >>> .e[0] = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); })\ > > > > >>> }; \ > > > > >>> register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = \ > > > > >>> a ## n ## __.r > > > > >> > > > > >> Yet that's likely awful code-gen wise? > > > > > > > > > > Seems OK: https://godbolt.org/z/nsdo5Gs8W > > > > > > > > In which case why not go this route. If the compiler is doing fine with > > > > that, maybe the array dimension expression could be further simplified, > > > > accepting yet more over-sizing? Like "sizeof(void *) / sizeof (arg) + 1" > > > > or even simply "sizeof(void *)"? Suitably commented of course ... > > > > > > > > >> For the time being, can we perhaps > > > > >> just tighten the BUILD_BUG_ON(), as iirc Alejandro had suggested? > > > > > > > > > > My main concern with tightening the BUILD_BUG_ON() is that then I > > > > > would also like to do so for the GCC one, so that build fails > > > > > uniformly. > > > > > > > > If we were to take that route, then yes, probably should constrain both > > > > (with a suitable comment on the gcc one). > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > Yet another way would be to have an intermediate `long` to cast onto. Compilers > > > will optimise away the copy. It ignores the different-type aliasing rules in > > > the C spec, so there's an assumption that we have -fno-strict-aliasing. But I > > > belive we do? Otherwise it should pretty much work on anything. > > > > > > ``` > > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > > unsigned long __tmp = 0; \ > > > *(typeof(arg) *)&__tmp = \ > > > ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); }) \ > > > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = __tmp; \ > > > ``` > > > > > > fwiw, clang18 emits identical code compared with the previous godbolt link. > > > > > > Link: https://godbolt.org/z/facd1M9xa > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Alejandro > > > > Bah. s/b/__tmp/ in line15. Same output though, so the point still stands. > > Had to adjust it to: > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > unsigned long a ## n ## __ = 0; \ > *(typeof(arg) *)&a ## n ## __ = \ > ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); }); \ > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = a ## n ## __ > > So that tmp__ is not defined multiple times for repeated > ALT_CALL_ARG() usages. > > Already tried something like this in the past, but it mixes code with > declarations, and that's forbidden in the current C standard that Xen > uses: > > ./arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/hvm.h:665:5: error: mixing declarations and code is incompatible with standards before C99 [-Werror,-Wdeclaration-after-statement] > > The `*(typeof(arg) *)&__tmp = ...` line is considered code, and is > followed by further declarations. Even if we moved both declarations > ahead of the assigns it would still complain when multiple > ALT_CALL_ARG() instances are used in the same altcall block. > > Thanks, Roger. That _was_ forbidden in C89, but it has been allowed since. We have a warning enabled to cause it to fail even if we always use C99-compatible compilers. I think we should change that. Regardless, I think it can be worked around. This compiles (otherwise untested): #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = ({ \ unsigned long tmp = 0; \ *(typeof(arg) *)&a ## n ## __ = (arg); \ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); \ tmp; \ }) That said, if the oversized temp union works, I'm fine with that too. Cheers, Alejandro
On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 5:25 PM BST, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 4:18 PM BST, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 03:25:08PM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > > On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 3:17 PM BST, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > > > On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 9:05 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > On 26.07.2024 09:52, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:36:15AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > >> On 26.07.2024 09:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > > >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:00:22PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > >>>> On 25.07.2024 16:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > > > > > >>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > > > > > >>>>>>> @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); > > > > > >>>>>>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 > > > > > >>>>>>> */ > > > > > >>>>>>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > > > > >>>>>>> - register union { \ > > > > > >>>>>>> - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > > > > > >>>>>>> - unsigned long r; \ > > > > > >>>>>>> + register struct { \ > > > > > >>>>>>> + typeof(arg) e; \ > > > > > >>>>>>> + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot > > > > > >>>>>> to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == > > > > > >>>>>> sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to > > > > > >>>>>> get rid of. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> I wondered about this, but I though it was only [] that we were trying > > > > > >>>>> to get rid of, not [0]. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Sadly (here) it's actually the other way around, aiui. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> The only other option I have in mind is using an oversized array on > > > > > >>> the union, like: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > > > > >>> union { \ > > > > > >>> typeof(arg) e[(sizeof(long) + sizeof(arg) - 1) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > > > > > >>> unsigned long r; \ > > > > > >>> } a ## n ## __ = { \ > > > > > >>> .e[0] = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); })\ > > > > > >>> }; \ > > > > > >>> register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = \ > > > > > >>> a ## n ## __.r > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Yet that's likely awful code-gen wise? > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems OK: https://godbolt.org/z/nsdo5Gs8W > > > > > > > > > > In which case why not go this route. If the compiler is doing fine with > > > > > that, maybe the array dimension expression could be further simplified, > > > > > accepting yet more over-sizing? Like "sizeof(void *) / sizeof (arg) + 1" > > > > > or even simply "sizeof(void *)"? Suitably commented of course ... > > > > > > > > > > >> For the time being, can we perhaps > > > > > >> just tighten the BUILD_BUG_ON(), as iirc Alejandro had suggested? > > > > > > > > > > > > My main concern with tightening the BUILD_BUG_ON() is that then I > > > > > > would also like to do so for the GCC one, so that build fails > > > > > > uniformly. > > > > > > > > > > If we were to take that route, then yes, probably should constrain both > > > > > (with a suitable comment on the gcc one). > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > Yet another way would be to have an intermediate `long` to cast onto. Compilers > > > > will optimise away the copy. It ignores the different-type aliasing rules in > > > > the C spec, so there's an assumption that we have -fno-strict-aliasing. But I > > > > belive we do? Otherwise it should pretty much work on anything. > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > > > unsigned long __tmp = 0; \ > > > > *(typeof(arg) *)&__tmp = \ > > > > ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); }) \ > > > > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = __tmp; \ > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > fwiw, clang18 emits identical code compared with the previous godbolt link. > > > > > > > > Link: https://godbolt.org/z/facd1M9xa > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Alejandro > > > > > > Bah. s/b/__tmp/ in line15. Same output though, so the point still stands. > > > > Had to adjust it to: > > > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > unsigned long a ## n ## __ = 0; \ > > *(typeof(arg) *)&a ## n ## __ = \ > > ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); }); \ > > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = a ## n ## __ > > > > So that tmp__ is not defined multiple times for repeated > > ALT_CALL_ARG() usages. > > > > Already tried something like this in the past, but it mixes code with > > declarations, and that's forbidden in the current C standard that Xen > > uses: > > > > ./arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/hvm.h:665:5: error: mixing declarations and code is incompatible with standards before C99 [-Werror,-Wdeclaration-after-statement] > > > > The `*(typeof(arg) *)&__tmp = ...` line is considered code, and is > > followed by further declarations. Even if we moved both declarations > > ahead of the assigns it would still complain when multiple > > ALT_CALL_ARG() instances are used in the same altcall block. > > > > Thanks, Roger. > > That _was_ forbidden in C89, but it has been allowed since. We have a warning > enabled to cause it to fail even if we always use C99-compatible compilers. I > think we should change that. > > Regardless, I think it can be worked around. This compiles (otherwise > untested): > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = ({ \ > unsigned long tmp = 0; \ > *(typeof(arg) *)&a ## n ## __ = (arg); \ > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); \ > tmp; \ > }) > > That said, if the oversized temp union works, I'm fine with that too. > > Cheers, > Alejandro Sigh... I'm going at 1 mistake per email today. I meant: #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = ({ \ unsigned long tmp = 0; \ *(typeof(arg) *)&tmp = (arg); \ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); \ tmp; \ }) Cheers, Alejandro
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 05:38:11PM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 5:25 PM BST, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 4:18 PM BST, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 03:25:08PM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > > > On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 3:17 PM BST, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > > > > On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 9:05 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > On 26.07.2024 09:52, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:36:15AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > >> On 26.07.2024 09:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > > > >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:00:22PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > >>>> On 25.07.2024 16:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> On 25.07.2024 12:56, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > > > > > > >>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > > > > > > >>>>>>> @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); > > > > > > >>>>>>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 > > > > > > >>>>>>> */ > > > > > > >>>>>>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > > > > > >>>>>>> - register union { \ > > > > > > >>>>>>> - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > > > > > > >>>>>>> - unsigned long r; \ > > > > > > >>>>>>> + register struct { \ > > > > > > >>>>>>> + typeof(arg) e; \ > > > > > > >>>>>>> + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> One thing that occurred to me only after our discussion, and I then forgot > > > > > > >>>>>> to mention this before you would send a patch: What if sizeof(void *) == > > > > > > >>>>>> sizeof(arg)? Zero-sized arrays are explicitly something we're trying to > > > > > > >>>>>> get rid of. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I wondered about this, but I though it was only [] that we were trying > > > > > > >>>>> to get rid of, not [0]. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Sadly (here) it's actually the other way around, aiui. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> The only other option I have in mind is using an oversized array on > > > > > > >>> the union, like: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > > > > > >>> union { \ > > > > > > >>> typeof(arg) e[(sizeof(long) + sizeof(arg) - 1) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > > > > > > >>> unsigned long r; \ > > > > > > >>> } a ## n ## __ = { \ > > > > > > >>> .e[0] = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); })\ > > > > > > >>> }; \ > > > > > > >>> register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = \ > > > > > > >>> a ## n ## __.r > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yet that's likely awful code-gen wise? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems OK: https://godbolt.org/z/nsdo5Gs8W > > > > > > > > > > > > In which case why not go this route. If the compiler is doing fine with > > > > > > that, maybe the array dimension expression could be further simplified, > > > > > > accepting yet more over-sizing? Like "sizeof(void *) / sizeof (arg) + 1" > > > > > > or even simply "sizeof(void *)"? Suitably commented of course ... > > > > > > > > > > > > >> For the time being, can we perhaps > > > > > > >> just tighten the BUILD_BUG_ON(), as iirc Alejandro had suggested? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My main concern with tightening the BUILD_BUG_ON() is that then I > > > > > > > would also like to do so for the GCC one, so that build fails > > > > > > > uniformly. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we were to take that route, then yes, probably should constrain both > > > > > > (with a suitable comment on the gcc one). > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > Yet another way would be to have an intermediate `long` to cast onto. Compilers > > > > > will optimise away the copy. It ignores the different-type aliasing rules in > > > > > the C spec, so there's an assumption that we have -fno-strict-aliasing. But I > > > > > belive we do? Otherwise it should pretty much work on anything. > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > > > > unsigned long __tmp = 0; \ > > > > > *(typeof(arg) *)&__tmp = \ > > > > > ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); }) \ > > > > > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = __tmp; \ > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > fwiw, clang18 emits identical code compared with the previous godbolt link. > > > > > > > > > > Link: https://godbolt.org/z/facd1M9xa > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Alejandro > > > > > > > > Bah. s/b/__tmp/ in line15. Same output though, so the point still stands. > > > > > > Had to adjust it to: > > > > > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > > > unsigned long a ## n ## __ = 0; \ > > > *(typeof(arg) *)&a ## n ## __ = \ > > > ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); }); \ > > > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = a ## n ## __ > > > > > > So that tmp__ is not defined multiple times for repeated > > > ALT_CALL_ARG() usages. > > > > > > Already tried something like this in the past, but it mixes code with > > > declarations, and that's forbidden in the current C standard that Xen > > > uses: > > > > > > ./arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/hvm.h:665:5: error: mixing declarations and code is incompatible with standards before C99 [-Werror,-Wdeclaration-after-statement] > > > > > > The `*(typeof(arg) *)&__tmp = ...` line is considered code, and is > > > followed by further declarations. Even if we moved both declarations > > > ahead of the assigns it would still complain when multiple > > > ALT_CALL_ARG() instances are used in the same altcall block. > > > > > > Thanks, Roger. > > > > That _was_ forbidden in C89, but it has been allowed since. We have a warning > > enabled to cause it to fail even if we always use C99-compatible compilers. I > > think we should change that. > > > > Regardless, I think it can be worked around. This compiles (otherwise > > untested): > > > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) > > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = ({ \ > > unsigned long tmp = 0; \ > > *(typeof(arg) *)&a ## n ## __ = (arg); \ > > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); \ > > tmp; \ > > }) > > > > That said, if the oversized temp union works, I'm fine with that too. > > > > Cheers, > > Alejandro > > Sigh... I'm going at 1 mistake per email today. I meant: > > #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) > register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = ({ \ > unsigned long tmp = 0; \ > *(typeof(arg) *)&tmp = (arg); \ > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); \ > tmp; \ > }) I see, so placing the temp variable on an inner scope. The code generated seems to be the same from godbolt. I don't have a strong opinion on using either. Your suggestion is slightly shorter than the union one, so I might go for it. Thanks, Roger.
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h index e63b45927643..c3e3a5e3f8a8 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h @@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 */ #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ - register union { \ - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ - unsigned long r; \ + register struct { \ + typeof(arg) e; \ + char pad[sizeof(void *) - sizeof(arg)]; \ } a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = { \ - .e[0] = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); })\ + .e = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); }) \ } #else #define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \
The current code in ALT_CALL_ARG() won't successfully workaround the clang code-generation issue if the arg parameter has a size that's not a power of 2. While there are no such sized parameters at the moment, improve the workaround to also be effective when such sizes are used. Instead of using a union with a long, add the necessary padding so that the resulting struct always has the same size as a register, and let the compiler zero-initialize the padding. Reported-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com> Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com> --- xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)