[PATCH RFC v2 4/5] tpm: add __always_inline for tpm_is_hwrng_enabled
Jarkko Sakkinen
jarkko at kernel.org
Wed Apr 16 12:34:16 PDT 2025
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 05:44:50PM +0800, Chen Linxuan via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Winston Wen <wentao at uniontech.com>
>
> Presume that kernel is compiled for x86_64 with gcc version 13.3.0:
>
> make defconfig
> ./scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh .config <(
> echo CONFIG_TCG_TPM=y
> echo CONFIG_HW_RANDOM=m
> )
> make KCFLAGS="-fno-inline-small-functions -fno-inline-functions-called-once"
>
> This results a link error:
>
> ld: vmlinux.o: in function `tpm_add_hwrng':
> tpm-chip.c:(.text+0x6c5924): undefined reference to `hwrng_register'
> ld: vmlinux.o: in function `tpm_chip_unregister':
> (.text+0x6c5bc9): undefined reference to `hwrng_unregister'
> ld: vmlinux.o: in function `tpm_chip_register':
> (.text+0x6c5c9b): undefined reference to `hwrng_unregister'
>
> With `CONFIG_TCG_TPM=y` and `CONFIG_HW_RANDOM=m`,
> the functions `tpm_add_hwrng`, `tpm_chip_unregister`, and
> `tpm_chip_register` are compiled into `vmlinux.o`
> and reference the symbols `hwrng_register` and `hwrng_unregister`.
> These symbols, however, are compiled into `rng-core.ko`, which results
> in the linking error.
>
> I am not sure but I think this weird linking error only arises when
> auto inlining is disabled because of some dead code elimination.
>
> `CONFIG_TCG_TPM=y` and `CONFIG_HW_RANDOM=m` set `CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_TPM=n`.
> This causes the function `tpm_is_hwrng_enabled` to always return
> `false`, as shown below:
>
> static bool tpm_is_hwrng_enabled(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> {
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_TPM))
> return false;
> if (tpm_is_firmware_upgrade(chip))
> return false;
> if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_HWRNG_DISABLED)
> return false;
> return true;
> }
>
> When `tpm_is_hwrng_enabled` is inlined, dead code elimination
> optimizations are applied and the reference to the `hwrng_*` functions
> will been removed.
> For instance, in the `tpm_chip_unregister` function:
>
> void tpm_chip_unregister(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_TCG_TPM2_HMAC
> int rc;
>
> rc = tpm_try_get_ops(chip);
> if (!rc) {
> tpm2_end_auth_session(chip);
> tpm_put_ops(chip);
> }
> #endif
>
> tpm_del_legacy_sysfs(chip);
> if (tpm_is_hwrng_enabled(chip))
> hwrng_unregister(&chip->hwrng);
> tpm_bios_log_teardown(chip);
> if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2 && !tpm_is_firmware_upgrade(chip))
> tpm_devs_remove(chip);
> tpm_del_char_device(chip);
> }
>
> When `tpm_is_hwrng_enabled` is inlined and always returns `false`,
> the call to `hwrng_unregister` is effectively part of a `if (false)`
> block, which I guess that will be then optimized out.
>
> However, when the `-fno-inline-small-functions` and
> `-fno-inline-functions-called-once` flags are used,
> tpm_is_hwrng_enabled is not inline.
>
> And this optimization some how cannot occur,
> leading to the undefined reference errors during linking.
>
> Adding the `__always_inline` attribute ensures that
> `tpm_is_hwrng_enabled` is inlined regardless of the compiler flags.
> This allows the dead code elimination to proceed as expected,
> resolving the linking issue.
>
> Co-developed-by: Chen Linxuan <chenlinxuan at uniontech.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Linxuan <chenlinxuan at uniontech.com>
> Signed-off-by: Winston Wen <wentao at uniontech.com>
> ---
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c
> index e25daf2396d37bcaeae8a96267764df0861ad1be..48cc74d84247e258a39f2118e03aa10d0cbb066a 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c
> @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int tpm_hwrng_read(struct hwrng *rng, void *data, size_t max, bool wait)
> return tpm_get_random(chip, data, max);
> }
>
> -static bool tpm_is_hwrng_enabled(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> +static __always_inline bool tpm_is_hwrng_enabled(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> {
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_TPM))
> return false;
>
> --
> 2.48.1
>
>
>
Thank you.
Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko at kernel.org>
BR, Jarkko
More information about the Linux-nvme
mailing list