Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1591130

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 02:46:29PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:31:39AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:42:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:27:29PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I see no apparent reason for the ud2.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's the possible division by zero. This change would avoid the ud2:
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-img-scb.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-img-scb.c
> > > > > index db8e8b40569d..a2b09c518225 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-img-scb.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-img-scb.c
> > > > > @@ -1196,6 +1196,8 @@ static int img_i2c_init(struct img_i2c *i2c)
> > > > >         clk_khz /= prescale;
> > > > > 
> > > > >         /* Setup the clock increment value */
> > > > > +       if (clk_khz < 1)
> > > > > +               clk_khz = 1;
> > > > >         inc = (256 * 16 * bitrate_khz) / clk_khz;
> > > > > 
> > > > >         /*
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, I see what gcc is doing.
> > > > 
> > > > 	clk_khz = clk_get_rate(i2c->scb_clk) / 1000;
> > > > 	...
> > > > 	inc = (256 * 16 * bitrate_khz) / clk_khz;
> > > > 
> > > > Because CONFIG_HAVE_CLK isn't set, clk_get_rate() returns 0, which means
> > > > clk_khz is always zero, so the last statement *always* results in a
> > > > divide-by-zero.  So that looks like a bug in the code.
> > > > 
> > > > However, I'm baffled by how gcc handles it.  Instead of:
> > > > 
> > > >   a) reporting a compile-time warning/error; or
> > > > 
> > > >   b) letting the #DE (divide error) exception happen;
> > > > 
> > > > it inserts a 'ud2', resulting in a #UD (invalid opcode).  Why?!?
> > > 
> > > Well, technically an invalid opcode is shorter code than generating an (integer) 
> > > division by zero exception, right?
> > 
> > What does that matter if it's the wrong behavior?
> 
> Well, both terminate the program, and it's obvious if you look at it with a 
> debugger what happened, right?

If it were obvious, we wouldn't be having this discussion :-)

The only thing obvious to me was that gcc mysteriously removed a bunch
of code and replaced it with a 'ud2' instruction in the middle of the
function for no apparent reason.

-- 
Josh

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-03-01 10:40 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-03-01 11:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-01 15:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-01 18:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-03-01 23:10 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-03-01 23:50 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-02 02:20 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-03-02 07:40 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-03-02 15:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-02 15:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-03-02 15:50 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-02 15:10 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-03-03 00:20 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-03 01:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-03-03 10:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-03-03 16:40 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-03-01 16:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-02 19:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-03-03 00:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] objtool: fix another gcc jump table detection issue Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-03-03 00:10 +0100
        [PATCH] objtool: fix another gcc jump table detection issue Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-03 04:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-01 16:30 +0100

csiph-web