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:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:05:27 -0500 (EST)
From:   Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Antony Yu <swpenim@gmail.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: [PATCH] __div64_32(): straighten up inline asm constraints
Message-ID: <pr6q9q72-6n62-236q-s59n-7osq71o285r9@syhkavp.arg>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

The ARM version of __div64_32() encapsulates a call to __do_div64 with 
non-standard argument passing. In particular, __n is a 64-bit input 
argument assigned to r0-r1 and __rem is an output argument sharing half 
of that 40-r1 register pair.

With __n being an input argument, the compiler is in its right to 
presume that r0-r1 would still hold the value of __n past the inline 
assembly statement. Normally, the compiler would have assigned non 
overlapping registers to __n and __rem if the value for __n is needed 
again.

However, here we enforce our own register assignment and gcc fails to 
notice the conflict. In practice this doesn't cause any problem as __n 
is considered dead after the asm statement and *n is overwritten. 
However this is not always guaranteed and clang rightfully complains.

Let's fix it properly by making __n into an input-output variable. This 
makes it clear that those registers representing __n have been modified. 
Then we can extract __rem as the high part of __n with plain C code.

This asm constraint "abuse" was likely relied upon back when gcc didn't 
handle 64-bit values optimally Turns out that gcc is now able to 
optimize things and produces the same code with this patch applied.

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
---

This is related to the thread titled "[RESEND,PATCH] ARM: fix 
__div64_32() error when compiling with clang". My limited compile test 
with clang appears to make it happy. If no more comments I'll push this 
to RMK's patch system.

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/div64.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/div64.h
index 898e9c78a7..595e538f5b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/div64.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/div64.h
@@ -21,29 +21,20 @@
  * assembly implementation with completely non standard calling convention
  * for arguments and results (beware).
  */
-
-#ifdef __ARMEB__
-#define __xh "r0"
-#define __xl "r1"
-#else
-#define __xl "r0"
-#define __xh "r1"
-#endif
-
 static inline uint32_t __div64_32(uint64_t *n, uint32_t base)
 {
 	register unsigned int __base      asm("r4") = base;
 	register unsigned long long __n   asm("r0") = *n;
 	register unsigned long long __res asm("r2");
-	register unsigned int __rem       asm(__xh);
-	asm(	__asmeq("%0", __xh)
+	unsigned int __rem;
+	asm(	__asmeq("%0", "r0")
 		__asmeq("%1", "r2")
-		__asmeq("%2", "r0")
-		__asmeq("%3", "r4")
+		__asmeq("%2", "r4")
 		"bl	__do_div64"
-		: "=r" (__rem), "=r" (__res)
-		: "r" (__n), "r" (__base)
+		: "+r" (__n), "=r" (__res)
+		: "r" (__base)
 		: "ip", "lr", "cc");
+	__rem = __n >> 32;
 	*n = __res;
 	return __rem;
 }