On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:33:00AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:45:11AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:06:07AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:05:16AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 04:31:29PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > This RFC combines all the random little fixes and improvements to the
> > > > > verifiers that we've been talking about for the past month or so into a
> > > > > single patch series!
> > > > >
> > > > > We start by refactoring the long format btree block header verifier into
> > > > > a single helper functionn and de-macroing dir block verifiers to make
> > > > > them less shouty. Next, we change verifier functions to return the
> > > > > approximate instruction pointer of the faulting test so that we can
> > > > > report more precise fault information to dmesg/tracepoints.
> > > >
> > > > Just jumping here quickly because I don't have time for a detailed
> > > > review:
> > > >
> > > > How good does this instruction pointer thing resolved to the actual
> > > > issue?
> > >
> > > Ugh, it's terrible once you turn on the optimizer.
> > >
> > > if (!xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb))
> > > return __this_address;
> > > if (!uuid_equal(&block->bb_u.s.bb_uuid, &mp->m_sb.sb_meta_uuid))
> > > return __this_address;
> > > if (block->bb_u.s.bb_blkno != cpu_to_be64(bp->b_bn))
> > > return __this_address;
> > > if (pag && be32_to_cpu(block->bb_u.s.bb_owner) != pag->pag_agno)
> > > return __this_address;
> > > return NULL;
> > >
> > > becomes:
> > >
> > > if (!xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb))
> > > goto out;
> > > if (!uuid_equal(&block->bb_u.s.bb_uuid, &mp->m_sb.sb_meta_uuid))
> > > goto out;
> > > if (block->bb_u.s.bb_blkno != cpu_to_be64(bp->b_bn))
> > > goto out;
> > > if (pag && be32_to_cpu(block->bb_u.s.bb_owner) != pag->pag_agno)
> > > goto out;
> > > return NULL;
> > > out:
> > > return __this_address;
> > >
> > > ...which is totally worthless, unless we want to compile all the verifier
> > > functions with __attribute__((optimize("O0"))), which is bogus.
> > >
> > > <sigh> Back to the drawing board on that one.
> >
> > Ok, there's /slightly/ less awful way to prevent gcc from optimizing the
> > verifier function to the point of imprecise pointer value, but it involves
> > writing to a volatile int:
> >
> > /* stupidly prevent gcc from over-optimizing getting the instruction ptr */
> > extern volatile int xfs_lineno;
> > #define __this_address ({ __label__ __here; __here: xfs_lineno = __LINE__; &&__here; })
> >
> > <grumble> Yucky, but it more or less works.
>
> Can you declare the label as volatile, like you can an asm
> statement to prevent the compiler from optimising out asm
> statements?
>
> Even so, given the yuckiness is very isolated and should only affect
> the slow path code, I can live with this.
Hmmm. I can't declare the label as volatile, but I /can/ inject
asm volatile("") and that seems to prevent gcc from moving code hunks
around:
#define __this_address ({ __label__ __here; __here: asm volatile(""); &&__here; })
--D
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
