Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 21:06:07 +0200
From:   Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>,
        Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10
Message-ID: <20200417190607.GY2424@tucnak>
Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
References: <20200415074842.GA31016@zn.tnic>
 <alpine.LSU.2.21.2004151445520.11688@wotan.suse.de>
 <20200415231930.19755bc7@sf>
 <20200417075739.GA7322@zn.tnic>
 <20200417080726.GS2424@tucnak>
 <20200417084224.GB7322@zn.tnic>
 <20200417085859.GU2424@tucnak>
 <20200417090909.GC7322@zn.tnic>
 <CAKwvOdnFXPBJsAUD++HtYS5JiR2KmX73M5GAUe-tvX-JYV7DaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKwvOdmNwNwa6rMC27-QZq8VDrYdTQeQqss-bAwF1EMmnAHxdw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdmNwNwa6rMC27-QZq8VDrYdTQeQqss-bAwF1EMmnAHxdw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:22:25AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't quite follow.  The idea is that an empty asm statement
> > in foo() should prevent foo() from being inlined into bar()?
> 
> s/inlined/tail called/

Yeah.  The thing is, the caller changes the stack protector guard base
value, so at the start of the function it saves a different value then
it compares at the end.  But, the function that it calls at the end
actually doesn't return, so this isn't a problem.
If it is tail called though, the stack protector guard checking is done
before the tail call and it crashes.
If the called function is marked with noreturn attribute or _Noreturn,
at least GCC will also not tail call it and all is fine, but not sure
what LLVM does in that case.

	Jakub