From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael Davidson <md@google.com>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Stephen Hines <srhines@google.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Bernhard.Rosenkranzer@linaro.org,
Peter Foley <pefoley2@pefoley.com>,
Behan Webster <behanw@converseincode.com>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/build: Specify stack alignment for clang
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:38:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170613063800.l24mai3lipzzypin@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170613005531.77656-4-mka@chromium.org>
* Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> wrote:
> For gcc stack alignment is configured with -mpreferred-stack-boundary=N,
> clang has the option -mstack-alignment=N for that purpose. Use the same
> alignment as for gcc.
>
> If the alignment is not specified clang assumes an alignment of
> 16 bytes, as required by the standard ABI. However as mentioned in
> d9b0cde91c60 ("x86-64, gcc: Use -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3 if
> supported") the standard kernel entry on x86-64 leaves the stack
> on an 8-byte boundary, as a consequence clang will keep the stack
> misaligned.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/Makefile | 18 +++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Makefile b/arch/x86/Makefile
> index 86b725d69423..7f6c33f4d428 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/x86/Makefile
> @@ -11,6 +11,14 @@ else
> KBUILD_DEFCONFIG := $(ARCH)_defconfig
> endif
>
> +# Handle different option names for specifying stack alignment with gcc and
> +# clang.
> +ifeq ($(cc-name),clang)
> + stack_align_opt := -mstack-alignment
> +else
> + stack_align_opt := -mpreferred-stack-boundary
> +endif
Nit: I'd name it cc_stack_align_opt or so, to make it clear this is a C compiler
option.
> @@ -65,8 +73,8 @@ ifeq ($(CONFIG_X86_32),y)
> # with nonstandard options
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-pic
>
> - # prevent gcc from keeping the stack 16 byte aligned
> - KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2)
> + # prevent the compiler from keeping the stack 16 byte aligned
> + KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,$(stack_align_opt)=2)
So the comment appears inaccurate: the point isn't really to 'keep' the compiler
from 16-byte alignment (there's nothing wrong with that, functionally), the point
is to use a more optimal alignment, right?
>
> # Disable unit-at-a-time mode on pre-gcc-4.0 compilers, it makes gcc use
> # a lot more stack due to the lack of sharing of stacklots:
> @@ -98,8 +106,8 @@ else
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mno-80387)
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mno-fp-ret-in-387)
>
> - # Use -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3 if supported.
> - KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mpreferred-stack-boundary=3)
> + # Align the stack to 8 bytes if supported.
> + KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,$(stack_align_opt)=3)
Here too the reason should be outlined: performance, features or correctness?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-13 6:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-13 0:55 [PATCH 0/3] x86: stack alignment for boot code and clang Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-06-13 0:55 ` [PATCH 1/3] kbuild: Add cc-option-no-kbuild macro Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-06-13 7:49 ` Michal Marek
2017-06-13 8:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2017-06-13 10:13 ` Masahiro Yamada
2017-06-13 16:45 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-06-13 0:55 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86/build: Use cc-option-no-kbuild for boot code compiler options Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-06-13 0:55 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86/build: Specify stack alignment for clang Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-06-13 6:38 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2017-06-13 17:25 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-06-13 6:39 ` [PATCH 0/3] x86: stack alignment for boot code and clang Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170613063800.l24mai3lipzzypin@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=Bernhard.Rosenkranzer@linaro.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=behanw@converseincode.com \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=ghackmann@google.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=md@google.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mka@chromium.org \
--cc=mmarek@suse.com \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=pefoley2@pefoley.com \
--cc=srhines@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®