4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
commit b3f2d07f4649adcf6905953a10d217b5683e4077 upstream.
The use of ACCESS_ONCE() looks like a micro-optimization to force gcc to use
an indexed load for the register address, but it has an absolutely detrimental
effect on builds with gcc-5 and CONFIG_KASAN=y, leading to a very likely
kernel stack overflow aside from very complex object code:
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_gmac.c: In function 'hns_gmac_update_stats':
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_gmac.c:419:1: error: the frame size of 2912 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_ppe.c: In function 'hns_ppe_reset_common':
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_ppe.c:390:1: error: the frame size of 1184 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_ppe.c: In function 'hns_ppe_get_regs':
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_ppe.c:621:1: error: the frame size of 3632 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_rcb.c: In function 'hns_rcb_get_common_regs':
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_rcb.c:970:1: error: the frame size of 2784 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_gmac.c: In function 'hns_gmac_get_regs':
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_gmac.c:641:1: error: the frame size of 5728 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_rcb.c: In function 'hns_rcb_get_ring_regs':
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_rcb.c:1021:1: error: the frame size of 2208 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_main.c: In function 'hns_dsaf_comm_init':
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_main.c:1209:1: error: the frame size of 1904 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_xgmac.c: In function 'hns_xgmac_get_regs':
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_xgmac.c:748:1: error: the frame size of 4704 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_main.c: In function 'hns_dsaf_update_stats':
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_main.c:2420:1: error: the frame size of 1088 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_main.c: In function 'hns_dsaf_get_regs':
hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_main.c:2753:1: error: the frame size of 10768 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
This does not seem to happen any more with gcc-7, but removing the ACCESS_ONCE
seems safe anyway and it avoids a serious issue for some people. I have verified
that with gcc-5.3.1, the object code we get is better in the new version
both with and without CONFIG_KASAN, as we no longer allocate a 1344 byte
stack frame for hns_dsaf_get_regs() but otherwise have practically identical
object code.
With gcc-7.0.0, removing ACCESS_ONCE has no effect, the object code is already
good either way.
This patch is probably not urgent to get into 4.11 as only KASAN=y builds
with certain compilers are affected, but I still think it makes sense to
backport into older kernels.
Fixes: 511e6bc ("net: add Hisilicon Network Subsystem DSAF support")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_reg.h | 8 ++------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_reg.h
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns/hns_dsaf_reg.h
@@ -900,9 +900,7 @@
static inline void dsaf_write_reg(void __iomem *base, u32 reg, u32 value)
{
- u8 __iomem *reg_addr = ACCESS_ONCE(base);
-
- writel(value, reg_addr + reg);
+ writel(value, base + reg);
}
#define dsaf_write_dev(a, reg, value) \
@@ -910,9 +908,7 @@ static inline void dsaf_write_reg(void _
static inline u32 dsaf_read_reg(u8 __iomem *base, u32 reg)
{
- u8 __iomem *reg_addr = ACCESS_ONCE(base);
-
- return readl(reg_addr + reg);
+ return readl(base + reg);
}
#define dsaf_read_dev(a, reg) \
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html