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:   Thu, 13 Aug 2020 10:37:01 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@oracle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: work around clang IAS bug referencing __force_order
Message-ID: <20200813173701.GC4295@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20200527135329.1172644-1-arnd@arndb.de>
 <878serh1b9.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <CAKwvOdnOh3H3ga2qpTktywvcgfXW5QJaB7r4XMhigmDzLhDNeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87h7t6tpye.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87h7t6tpye.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 07:28:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >> > + *
> >> > + * Clang sometimes fails to kill the reference to the dummy variable, so
> >> > + * provide an actual copy.
> >>
> >> Can that compiler be fixed instead?
> >
> > I don't think so. The logic in the compiler whether to emit an
> 
> Forget that I asked. Heat induced brain damaged.
> 
> > I'd much rather remove all of __force_order.
> 
> Right.
> 
> > Not sure about the comment in arch/x86/include/asm/special_insns.h
> > either; smells fishy like a bug with a compiler from a long time ago.
> > It looks like it was introduced in:
> > commit d3ca901f94b32 ("x86: unify paravirt parts of system.h")
> > Lore has this thread:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4755A809.4050305@qumranet.com/
> > Patch 4: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/11967844071346-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com/
> > It seems like there was a discussion about %cr8, but no one asked
> > "what's going on here with __force_order, is that right?"
> 
> Correct and the changelog is uselss in this regard.
> 
> > Quick boot test of the below works for me, though I should probably
> > test hosting a virtualized guest since d3ca901f94b32 refers to
> > paravirt.  Thoughts?
> 
> Let me ask (hopefully) useful questions this time:
> 
>   Is a compiler allowed to reorder two 'asm volatile()'?
> 
>   Are there compilers (gcc >= 4.9 or other supported ones) which do that?

I would hope that the answer to both of these questions is "no"!

But I freely confess that I have been disappointed before on this sort
of thing.  :-/

							Thanx, Paul