Re: [PATCH 04/18] arm: implement nospec_ptr()

2018-01-10 Thread Laura Abbott 

On 01/09/2018 11:40 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:

On 2018/1/10 10:04, Laura Abbott wrote:

On 01/05/2018 05:10 PM, Dan Williams wrote:

From: Mark Rutland 

This patch implements nospec_ptr() for arm, following the recommended
architectural sequences for the arm and thumb instruction sets.


Fedora picked up the series and it fails on arm:

In file included from ./include/linux/compiler.h:242:0,
  from ./include/uapi/linux/swab.h:6,
  from ./include/linux/swab.h:5,
  from ./arch/arm/include/asm/opcodes.h:89,
  from ./arch/arm/include/asm/bug.h:7,
  from ./include/linux/bug.h:5,
  from ./include/linux/mmdebug.h:5,
  from ./include/linux/gfp.h:5,
  from ./include/linux/slab.h:15,
  from kernel/fork.c:14:
./include/linux/fdtable.h: In function '__fcheck_files':
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration specifiers 
or '...' before numeric constant
   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
  ^
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
'__load_no_speculate_n'
    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
     ^~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
'__load_no_speculate'
   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
   ^~~
./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_ptr'
   nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
   ^~
./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_array_ptr'
   if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
  ^~~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration specifiers 
or '...' before numeric constant
   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
  ^
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
'__load_no_speculate_n'
    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
     ^~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
'__load_no_speculate'
   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
   ^~~
./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_ptr'
   nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
   ^~
./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_array_ptr'
   if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
  ^~~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration specifiers 
or '...' before numeric constant
   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
  ^
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
'__load_no_speculate_n'
    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
     ^~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
'__load_no_speculate'
   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
   ^~~
./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_ptr'
   nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
   ^~
./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_array_ptr'
   if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))

I can't puzzle out what exactly is the problem here, except that it really
does not seem to like that failval. Does the arm compiler not like doing
the typeof with the __arr + __idx?



+#define __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval, cmpptr, sz)    \
+({    \
+    typeof(*ptr) __nln_val;    \
+    typeof(*ptr) __failval =    \
+    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));    \


Just typo,

- (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval)); \
+ (typeof(*ptr))(unsigned long)(failval); \

Please try it.

Thanks
Hanjun



Ah yeah, that's exactly it. I really missed the obvious.

Thanks,
Laura

Re: [PATCH 04/18] arm: implement nospec_ptr()

2018-01-10 Thread Laura Abbott 

On 01/09/2018 11:40 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:

On 2018/1/10 10:04, Laura Abbott wrote:

On 01/05/2018 05:10 PM, Dan Williams wrote:

From: Mark Rutland 

This patch implements nospec_ptr() for arm, following the recommended
architectural sequences for the arm and thumb instruction sets.


Fedora picked up the series and it fails on arm:

In file included from ./include/linux/compiler.h:242:0,
  from ./include/uapi/linux/swab.h:6,
  from ./include/linux/swab.h:5,
  from ./arch/arm/include/asm/opcodes.h:89,
  from ./arch/arm/include/asm/bug.h:7,
  from ./include/linux/bug.h:5,
  from ./include/linux/mmdebug.h:5,
  from ./include/linux/gfp.h:5,
  from ./include/linux/slab.h:15,
  from kernel/fork.c:14:
./include/linux/fdtable.h: In function '__fcheck_files':
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration specifiers 
or '...' before numeric constant
   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
  ^
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
'__load_no_speculate_n'
    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
     ^~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
'__load_no_speculate'
   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
   ^~~
./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_ptr'
   nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
   ^~
./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_array_ptr'
   if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
  ^~~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration specifiers 
or '...' before numeric constant
   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
  ^
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
'__load_no_speculate_n'
    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
     ^~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
'__load_no_speculate'
   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
   ^~~
./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_ptr'
   nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
   ^~
./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_array_ptr'
   if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
  ^~~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration specifiers 
or '...' before numeric constant
   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
  ^
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
'__load_no_speculate_n'
    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
     ^~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
'__load_no_speculate'
   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
   ^~~
./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_ptr'
   nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
   ^~
./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_array_ptr'
   if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))

I can't puzzle out what exactly is the problem here, except that it really
does not seem to like that failval. Does the arm compiler not like doing
the typeof with the __arr + __idx?



+#define __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval, cmpptr, sz)    \
+({    \
+    typeof(*ptr) __nln_val;    \
+    typeof(*ptr) __failval =    \
+    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));    \


Just typo,

- (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval)); \
+ (typeof(*ptr))(unsigned long)(failval); \

Please try it.

Thanks
Hanjun



Ah yeah, that's exactly it. I really missed the obvious.

Thanks,
Laura

Re: [PATCH 04/18] arm: implement nospec_ptr()

2018-01-09 Thread Hanjun Guo 
On 2018/1/10 10:04, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 01/05/2018 05:10 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> From: Mark Rutland 
>>
>> This patch implements nospec_ptr() for arm, following the recommended
>> architectural sequences for the arm and thumb instruction sets.
>>
> Fedora picked up the series and it fails on arm:
> 
> In file included from ./include/linux/compiler.h:242:0,
>  from ./include/uapi/linux/swab.h:6,
>  from ./include/linux/swab.h:5,
>  from ./arch/arm/include/asm/opcodes.h:89,
>  from ./arch/arm/include/asm/bug.h:7,
>  from ./include/linux/bug.h:5,
>  from ./include/linux/mmdebug.h:5,
>  from ./include/linux/gfp.h:5,
>  from ./include/linux/slab.h:15,
>  from kernel/fork.c:14:
> ./include/linux/fdtable.h: In function '__fcheck_files':
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration 
> specifiers or '...' before numeric constant
>   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
>  ^
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
> '__load_no_speculate_n'
>    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
>     ^~~
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> '__load_no_speculate'
>   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
>   ^~~
> ./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> 'nospec_ptr'
>   nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
>   ^~
> ./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 
> 'nospec_array_ptr'
>   if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
>  ^~~~
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration 
> specifiers or '...' before numeric constant
>   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
>  ^
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
> '__load_no_speculate_n'
>    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
>     ^~~
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> '__load_no_speculate'
>   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
>   ^~~
> ./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> 'nospec_ptr'
>   nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
>   ^~
> ./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 
> 'nospec_array_ptr'
>   if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
>  ^~~~
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration 
> specifiers or '...' before numeric constant
>   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
>  ^
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
> '__load_no_speculate_n'
>    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
>     ^~~
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> '__load_no_speculate'
>   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
>   ^~~
> ./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> 'nospec_ptr'
>   nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
>   ^~
> ./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 
> 'nospec_array_ptr'
>   if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
> 
> I can't puzzle out what exactly is the problem here, except that it really
> does not seem to like that failval. Does the arm compiler not like doing
> the typeof with the __arr + __idx?

>> +#define __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval, cmpptr, sz)    \
>> +({    \
>> +    typeof(*ptr) __nln_val;    \
>> +    typeof(*ptr) __failval =    \
>> +    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));    \

Just typo,

- (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval)); \
+ (typeof(*ptr))(unsigned long)(failval); \

Please try it.

Thanks
Hanjun

Re: [PATCH 04/18] arm: implement nospec_ptr()

2018-01-09 Thread Hanjun Guo 
On 2018/1/10 10:04, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 01/05/2018 05:10 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> From: Mark Rutland 
>>
>> This patch implements nospec_ptr() for arm, following the recommended
>> architectural sequences for the arm and thumb instruction sets.
>>
> Fedora picked up the series and it fails on arm:
> 
> In file included from ./include/linux/compiler.h:242:0,
>  from ./include/uapi/linux/swab.h:6,
>  from ./include/linux/swab.h:5,
>  from ./arch/arm/include/asm/opcodes.h:89,
>  from ./arch/arm/include/asm/bug.h:7,
>  from ./include/linux/bug.h:5,
>  from ./include/linux/mmdebug.h:5,
>  from ./include/linux/gfp.h:5,
>  from ./include/linux/slab.h:15,
>  from kernel/fork.c:14:
> ./include/linux/fdtable.h: In function '__fcheck_files':
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration 
> specifiers or '...' before numeric constant
>   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
>  ^
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
> '__load_no_speculate_n'
>    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
>     ^~~
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> '__load_no_speculate'
>   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
>   ^~~
> ./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> 'nospec_ptr'
>   nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
>   ^~
> ./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 
> 'nospec_array_ptr'
>   if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
>  ^~~~
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration 
> specifiers or '...' before numeric constant
>   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
>  ^
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
> '__load_no_speculate_n'
>    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
>     ^~~
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> '__load_no_speculate'
>   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
>   ^~~
> ./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> 'nospec_ptr'
>   nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
>   ^~
> ./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 
> 'nospec_array_ptr'
>   if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
>  ^~~~
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration 
> specifiers or '...' before numeric constant
>   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
>  ^
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
> '__load_no_speculate_n'
>    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
>     ^~~
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> '__load_no_speculate'
>   __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
>   ^~~
> ./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 
> 'nospec_ptr'
>   nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
>   ^~
> ./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 
> 'nospec_array_ptr'
>   if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
> 
> I can't puzzle out what exactly is the problem here, except that it really
> does not seem to like that failval. Does the arm compiler not like doing
> the typeof with the __arr + __idx?

>> +#define __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval, cmpptr, sz)    \
>> +({    \
>> +    typeof(*ptr) __nln_val;    \
>> +    typeof(*ptr) __failval =    \
>> +    (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));    \

Just typo,

- (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval)); \
+ (typeof(*ptr))(unsigned long)(failval); \

Please try it.

Thanks
Hanjun

Re: [PATCH 04/18] arm: implement nospec_ptr()

2018-01-09 Thread Laura Abbott 

On 01/05/2018 05:10 PM, Dan Williams wrote:

From: Mark Rutland 

This patch implements nospec_ptr() for arm, following the recommended
architectural sequences for the arm and thumb instruction sets.



Fedora picked up the series and it fails on arm:

In file included from ./include/linux/compiler.h:242:0,
 from ./include/uapi/linux/swab.h:6,
 from ./include/linux/swab.h:5,
 from ./arch/arm/include/asm/opcodes.h:89,
 from ./arch/arm/include/asm/bug.h:7,
 from ./include/linux/bug.h:5,
 from ./include/linux/mmdebug.h:5,
 from ./include/linux/gfp.h:5,
 from ./include/linux/slab.h:15,
 from kernel/fork.c:14:
./include/linux/fdtable.h: In function '__fcheck_files':
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration specifiers 
or '...' before numeric constant
  __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
 ^
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
'__load_no_speculate_n'
   (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
^~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
'__load_no_speculate'
  __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
  ^~~
./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_ptr'
  nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
  ^~
./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_array_ptr'
  if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
 ^~~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration specifiers 
or '...' before numeric constant
  __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
 ^
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
'__load_no_speculate_n'
   (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
^~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
'__load_no_speculate'
  __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
  ^~~
./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_ptr'
  nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
  ^~
./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_array_ptr'
  if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
 ^~~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration specifiers 
or '...' before numeric constant
  __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
 ^
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
'__load_no_speculate_n'
   (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
^~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
'__load_no_speculate'
  __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
  ^~~
./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_ptr'
  nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
  ^~
./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_array_ptr'
  if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))

I can't puzzle out what exactly is the problem here, except that it really
does not seem to like that failval. Does the arm compiler not like doing
the typeof with the __arr + __idx?

Thanks,
Laura


Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland 
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams 
---
  arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h |   75 
  1 file changed, 75 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
index 40f5c410fd8c..6384c90e4b72 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -37,6 +37,81 @@
  #define dmb(x) __asm__ __volatile__ ("" : : : "memory")
  #endif
  
+#ifdef CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL

+#define __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval, cmpptr, sz)\
+({ \
+   typeof(*ptr) __nln_val; \
+   typeof(*ptr) __failval =\
+   (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval)); \
+   \
+   asm volatile (  \
+   "  cmp %[c], %[l]\n"  \
+   "  it  hs\n"  \
+   "  cmphs   %[h], %[c]\n"  \
+   "  blo 1f\n"  \
+   "  ld" #sz " %[v], %[p]\n"  \
+   "1:

Re: [PATCH 04/18] arm: implement nospec_ptr()

2018-01-09 Thread Laura Abbott 

On 01/05/2018 05:10 PM, Dan Williams wrote:

From: Mark Rutland 

This patch implements nospec_ptr() for arm, following the recommended
architectural sequences for the arm and thumb instruction sets.



Fedora picked up the series and it fails on arm:

In file included from ./include/linux/compiler.h:242:0,
 from ./include/uapi/linux/swab.h:6,
 from ./include/linux/swab.h:5,
 from ./arch/arm/include/asm/opcodes.h:89,
 from ./arch/arm/include/asm/bug.h:7,
 from ./include/linux/bug.h:5,
 from ./include/linux/mmdebug.h:5,
 from ./include/linux/gfp.h:5,
 from ./include/linux/slab.h:15,
 from kernel/fork.c:14:
./include/linux/fdtable.h: In function '__fcheck_files':
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration specifiers 
or '...' before numeric constant
  __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
 ^
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
'__load_no_speculate_n'
   (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
^~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
'__load_no_speculate'
  __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
  ^~~
./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_ptr'
  nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
  ^~
./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_array_ptr'
  if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
 ^~~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration specifiers 
or '...' before numeric constant
  __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
 ^
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
'__load_no_speculate_n'
   (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
^~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
'__load_no_speculate'
  __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
  ^~~
./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_ptr'
  nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
  ^~
./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_array_ptr'
  if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))
 ^~~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:41: error: expected declaration specifiers 
or '...' before numeric constant
  __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
 ^
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:68:32: note: in definition of macro 
'__load_no_speculate_n'
   (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval));  \
^~~
./arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h:112:2: note: in expansion of macro 
'__load_no_speculate'
  __load_no_speculate(&__np_ptr, lo, hi, 0, __np_ptr);  \
  ^~~
./include/asm-generic/barrier.h:122:2: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_ptr'
  nospec_ptr(__arr + __idx, __arr, __arr + __sz);   \
  ^~
./include/linux/fdtable.h:86:13: note: in expansion of macro 'nospec_array_ptr'
  if ((fdp = nospec_array_ptr(fdt->fd, fd, fdt->max_fds)))

I can't puzzle out what exactly is the problem here, except that it really
does not seem to like that failval. Does the arm compiler not like doing
the typeof with the __arr + __idx?

Thanks,
Laura


Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland 
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams 
---
  arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h |   75 
  1 file changed, 75 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
index 40f5c410fd8c..6384c90e4b72 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -37,6 +37,81 @@
  #define dmb(x) __asm__ __volatile__ ("" : : : "memory")
  #endif
  
+#ifdef CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL

+#define __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval, cmpptr, sz)\
+({ \
+   typeof(*ptr) __nln_val; \
+   typeof(*ptr) __failval =\
+   (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval)); \
+   \
+   asm volatile (  \
+   "  cmp %[c], %[l]\n"  \
+   "  it  hs\n"  \
+   "  cmphs   %[h], %[c]\n"  \
+   "  blo 1f\n"  \
+   "  ld" #sz " %[v], %[p]\n"  \
+   "1:it  lo\n"  \
+   "  movlo

[PATCH 04/18] arm: implement nospec_ptr()

2018-01-05 Thread Dan Williams 
From: Mark Rutland 

This patch implements nospec_ptr() for arm, following the recommended
architectural sequences for the arm and thumb instruction sets.

Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland 
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams 
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h |   75 
 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
index 40f5c410fd8c..6384c90e4b72 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -37,6 +37,81 @@
 #define dmb(x) __asm__ __volatile__ ("" : : : "memory")
 #endif
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL
+#define __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval, cmpptr, sz)\
+({ \
+   typeof(*ptr) __nln_val; \
+   typeof(*ptr) __failval =\
+   (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval)); \
+   \
+   asm volatile (  \
+   "   cmp %[c], %[l]\n"   \
+   "   it  hs\n"   \
+   "   cmphs   %[h], %[c]\n"   \
+   "   blo 1f\n"   \
+   "   ld" #sz " %[v], %[p]\n" \
+   "1: it  lo\n"   \
+   "   movlo   %[v], %[f]\n"   \
+   "   .inst 0xf3af8014 @ CSDB\n"  \
+   : [v] "=" (__nln_val) \
+   : [p] "m" (*(ptr)), [l] "r" (lo), [h] "r" (hi), \
+ [f] "r" (__failval), [c] "r" (cmpptr) \
+   : "cc");\
+   \
+   __nln_val;  \
+})
+#else
+#define __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval, cmpptr, sz)\
+({ \
+   typeof(*ptr) __nln_val; \
+   typeof(*ptr) __failval =\
+   (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval)); \
+   \
+   asm volatile (  \
+   "   cmp %[c], %[l]\n"   \
+   "   cmphs   %[h], %[c]\n"   \
+   "   ldr" #sz "hi %[v], %[p]\n"  \
+   "   movls   %[v], %[f]\n"   \
+   "   .inst 0xe320f014 @ CSDB\n"  \
+   : [v] "=" (__nln_val) \
+   : [p] "m" (*(ptr)), [l] "r" (lo), [h] "r" (hi), \
+ [f] "r" (__failval), [c] "r" (cmpptr) \
+   : "cc");\
+   \
+   __nln_val;  \
+})
+#endif
+
+#define __load_no_speculate(ptr, lo, hi, failval, cmpptr)  \
+({ \
+   typeof(*(ptr)) __nl_val;\
+   \
+   switch (sizeof(__nl_val)) { \
+   case 1: \
+   __nl_val = __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval,  \
+cmpptr, b);\
+   break;  \
+   case 2: \
+   __nl_val = __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval,  \
+cmpptr, h);\
+   break;  \
+   case 4: \
+   __nl_val = __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval,  \
+cmpptr, ); \
+   break;  \
+   default:\
+   BUILD_BUG();\
+   }   \
+   \
+   __nl_val;   \
+})
+
+#define nospec_ptr(ptr, lo, hi)

[PATCH 04/18] arm: implement nospec_ptr()

2018-01-05 Thread Dan Williams 
From: Mark Rutland 

This patch implements nospec_ptr() for arm, following the recommended
architectural sequences for the arm and thumb instruction sets.

Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland 
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams 
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h |   75 
 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
index 40f5c410fd8c..6384c90e4b72 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -37,6 +37,81 @@
 #define dmb(x) __asm__ __volatile__ ("" : : : "memory")
 #endif
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL
+#define __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval, cmpptr, sz)\
+({ \
+   typeof(*ptr) __nln_val; \
+   typeof(*ptr) __failval =\
+   (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval)); \
+   \
+   asm volatile (  \
+   "   cmp %[c], %[l]\n"   \
+   "   it  hs\n"   \
+   "   cmphs   %[h], %[c]\n"   \
+   "   blo 1f\n"   \
+   "   ld" #sz " %[v], %[p]\n" \
+   "1: it  lo\n"   \
+   "   movlo   %[v], %[f]\n"   \
+   "   .inst 0xf3af8014 @ CSDB\n"  \
+   : [v] "=" (__nln_val) \
+   : [p] "m" (*(ptr)), [l] "r" (lo), [h] "r" (hi), \
+ [f] "r" (__failval), [c] "r" (cmpptr) \
+   : "cc");\
+   \
+   __nln_val;  \
+})
+#else
+#define __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval, cmpptr, sz)\
+({ \
+   typeof(*ptr) __nln_val; \
+   typeof(*ptr) __failval =\
+   (typeof(*ptr)(unsigned long)(failval)); \
+   \
+   asm volatile (  \
+   "   cmp %[c], %[l]\n"   \
+   "   cmphs   %[h], %[c]\n"   \
+   "   ldr" #sz "hi %[v], %[p]\n"  \
+   "   movls   %[v], %[f]\n"   \
+   "   .inst 0xe320f014 @ CSDB\n"  \
+   : [v] "=" (__nln_val) \
+   : [p] "m" (*(ptr)), [l] "r" (lo), [h] "r" (hi), \
+ [f] "r" (__failval), [c] "r" (cmpptr) \
+   : "cc");\
+   \
+   __nln_val;  \
+})
+#endif
+
+#define __load_no_speculate(ptr, lo, hi, failval, cmpptr)  \
+({ \
+   typeof(*(ptr)) __nl_val;\
+   \
+   switch (sizeof(__nl_val)) { \
+   case 1: \
+   __nl_val = __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval,  \
+cmpptr, b);\
+   break;  \
+   case 2: \
+   __nl_val = __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval,  \
+cmpptr, h);\
+   break;  \
+   case 4: \
+   __nl_val = __load_no_speculate_n(ptr, lo, hi, failval,  \
+cmpptr, ); \
+   break;  \
+   default:\
+   BUILD_BUG();\
+   }   \
+   \
+   __nl_val;   \
+})
+
+#define nospec_ptr(ptr, lo, hi)
\
+({