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, 3 Dec 2020 11:26:23 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/16] Add support for Clang LTO
Message-ID: <20201203112622.GA31188@willie-the-truck>
References: <20201201213707.541432-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201201213707.541432-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

Hi Sami,

On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 01:36:51PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> This patch series adds support for building the kernel with Clang's
> Link Time Optimization (LTO). In addition to performance, the primary
> motivation for LTO is to allow Clang's Control-Flow Integrity (CFI)
> to be used in the kernel. Google has shipped millions of Pixel
> devices running three major kernel versions with LTO+CFI since 2018.
> 
> Most of the patches are build system changes for handling LLVM
> bitcode, which Clang produces with LTO instead of ELF object files,
> postponing ELF processing until a later stage, and ensuring initcall
> ordering.
> 
> Note that arm64 support depends on Will's memory ordering patches
> [1]. I will post x86_64 patches separately after we have fixed the
> remaining objtool warnings [2][3].

I took this series for a spin, with my for-next/lto branch merged in but
I see a failure during the LTO stage with clang 11.0.5 because it doesn't
understand the '.arch_extension rcpc' directive we throw out in READ_ONCE().

We actually check that this extension is available before using it in
the arm64 Kconfig:

	config AS_HAS_LDAPR
		def_bool $(as-instr,.arch_extension rcpc)

so this shouldn't happen. I then realised, I wasn't passing LLVM_IAS=1
on my Make command line; with that, then the detection works correctly
and the LTO step succeeds.

Why is it necessary to pass LLVM_IAS=1 if LTO is enabled? I think it
would be _much_ better if this was implicit (or if LTO depended on it).

Cheers,

Will