[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v2] x86/altcall: further refine clang workaround
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 02:41:23PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 29.07.2024 14:00, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 12:47:09PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 29.07.2024 12:30, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h > >>> @@ -183,13 +183,13 @@ extern void alternative_branches(void); > >>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/12579 > >>> * https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/82598 > >>> */ > >>> -#define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) \ > >>> - register union { \ > >>> - typeof(arg) e[sizeof(long) / sizeof(arg)]; \ > >>> - unsigned long r; \ > >>> - } a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = { \ > >>> - .e[0] = ({ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); (arg); })\ > >>> - } > >>> +#define ALT_CALL_ARG(arg, n) > >>> \ > >>> + register unsigned long a ## n ## _ asm ( ALT_CALL_arg ## n ) = ({ > >>> \ > >>> + unsigned long tmp = 0; > >>> \ > >>> + *(typeof(arg) *)&tmp = (arg); > >>> \ > >>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(arg) > sizeof(void *)); > >>> \ > >> > >> With this, even more so than before, I think the type of tmp would better > >> be void * (or the BUILD_BUG_ON() be made use unsigned long, yet I consider > >> that less desirable). > > > > Won't using void * be uglier, as we then need to cast the last tmp > > statement to unsigned long? > > Only if we stick to using unsigned long for a ## n ## _. Afaics there's > nothing wrong with making that void *, too. Right, but then for consistency I would also like to make r{10,11}_ void *, and ALT_CALL_NO_ARG(), which might be too much. My preference is likely to keep it at unsigned long, and adjust the BUILD_BUG_ON(), unless you have a strong opinion to change it to void * (and possibly the rest of the register variables). Thanks, Roger.
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |