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;
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-sparc <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20210906142615.GA1917503@roeck-us.net>
 <CAHk-=wgjTePY1v_D-jszz4NrpTso0CdvB9PcdroPS=TNU1oZMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c3790fb9-b83f-9596-18a1-21ace987c850@roeck-us.net>
 <CAHk-=wi4NW3NC0xWykkw=6LnjQD6D_rtRtxY9g8gQAJXtQMi8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210906234921.GA1394069@roeck-us.net>
 <20210908042838.GA2585993@roeck-us.net>
 <CAHk-=whVDMcg==vcOopR0Mci2FQ8bzJjufyCg+WPh003K2i2ww@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable '-Werror' by default for all kernel builds
Message-ID: <0428495c-fbf3-77f2-b296-cba4a59e52da@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Tue, 7 Sep 2021 22:46:10 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whVDMcg==vcOopR0Mci2FQ8bzJjufyCg+WPh003K2i2ww@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/7/21 9:55 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 9:28 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>
>> It is seen with gcc 11.x whenever a memXXX or strXXX function parameter
>> is a pointer to a fixed address.
> 
> I wonder why I don't see it with gcc 11.2 here on x86-64.
> 

I see the problem only on some architectures. No idea what triggers it,
but it is definitely architecture dependent.

>> gcc is happy if "(void *) 0xfffc1f2c"
>> is passed to a global function which does nothing but return the address,
>> such as:
>>
>> void *sanitize_address(void *address)
>> {
>>          return address;
>> }
> 
> We have had reasons to do things like that before for somewhat similar
> (well, opposite) reasons - trying to disassociate some pointer from
> its originating symbol type.
> 
> Look at RELOC_HIDE().
> 
> It might be worth it having something similar for "absolute_pointer()".
> 
> Entirely untested "written-in-the-MUA" garbage:
> 
>     #define absolute_pointer(val) \
>          ({ void *__res; __asm__("":"=r" (__res):"0" ((unsigned
> long)(val))); __res; })
> 

or:

#define absolute_pointer(val) RELOC_HIDE(val, 0)

or maybe:

#define absolute_pointer(val) RELOC_HIDE((void *)val, 0)

would do the same (though the first variant needs a pointer as argument).
All of those compile.

I tested the first and the last option on qemu:parisc and confirmed that
both work as expected.

I'd be happy to send a formal patch. Which one do you prefer, and where
should I put it ?

Thanks,
Guenter