Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for clang
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
References: <cover.1505846562.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <31e96e6bcfcb47725e15a093b9c31660dfaad430.1505846562.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Message-ID: <eddc6128-9ae8-a5ea-0174-98dfadf7d07b@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:32:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <31e96e6bcfcb47725e15a093b9c31660dfaad430.1505846562.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 994
Lines: 28

On 09/19/17 11:45, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> For inline asm statements which have a CALL instruction, we list the
> stack pointer as a constraint to convince GCC to ensure the frame
> pointer is set up first:
> 
>   static inline void foo()
>   {
>   	register void *__sp asm(_ASM_SP);
>   	asm("call bar" : "+r" (__sp))
>   }
> 
> Unfortunately, that pattern causes clang to corrupt the stack pointer.
> 
> There's actually an easier way to achieve the same goal in GCC, without
> causing trouble for clang.  If we declare the stack pointer register
> variable as a global variable, and remove the constraint altogether,
> that convinces GCC to always set up the frame pointer before inserting
> *any* inline asm.
> 
> It basically acts as if *every* inline asm statement has a CALL
> instruction.  It's a bit overkill, but the performance impact should be
> negligible.
> 

Again, probably negligible, but why do we need a frame pointer just
because we have a call assembly instruction?

	-hpa