[PATCH] arm64/cpufeatures: Enforce inline/const properties of cpus_have_const_cap

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 02:42:50PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 19/01/17 14:37, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:58:45AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> Despite being flagged "inline", cpus_have_const_cap may end-up being
> >> placed out of line if the compiler decides so. This would be unfortunate,
> >> as we want to be able to use this function in HYP, where we need to
> >> be 100% sure of what is mapped there. __always_inline seems to be a
> >> better choice given the constraint.
> >>
> >> Also, be a lot tougher on non-const or out-of-range capability values
> >> (a non-const cap value shouldn't be used here, and the semantic of an
> >> OOR value is at best ill defined). In those two case, BUILD_BUG_ON is
> >> what you get.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose at arm.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 7 ++++---
> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> >> index b4989df..4710469 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> >> @@ -105,10 +105,11 @@ static inline bool cpu_have_feature(unsigned int num)
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  /* System capability check for constant caps */
> >> -static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
> >> +static __always_inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
> >>  {
> >> -	if (num >= ARM64_NCAPS)
> >> -		return false;
> >> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(num));
> >> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(num >= ARM64_NCAPS);
> > 
> > This gives different behaviour to cpus_have_const_cap when compared to
> > cpus_have_cap, which I really don't like. What is the current behaviour
> > if you pass a non-constant num parameter? Does the kernel actually build?
> 
> If your toolchain doesn't support jump labels (gcc 4.8 for example), it
> will build. But my point here is that if you're using the _const
> version, it should to be an actual constant, within the range of
> existing capabilities. Otherwise, I don't really understand what the
> semantic of _const means here.

There are two things here:

  1. GCC can make non-const values constant using a runtime conditional

  2. If we treat out-of-range caps as a BUILD_BUG_ON, then we've got
     different behaviour with cpus_have_cap, which will return false.

So I don't think that the BUILD_BUG_ON(num >= ARM64_NCAPS) makes an awful
lot of sense, whilst the other BUILD_BUG_ON seems more like a sanity check
on jump labels. That might be justifiable if the build failure is more
obvious than what we currently get, so it's mainly the range check that
I object to.

Will