Re: x86-64: Maintain 16-byte stack alignment
From: Josh Poimboeuf <hidden>
Date: 2017-01-12 20:15:16
Also in:
lkml
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:08:07PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Josh Poimboeuf [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Just to clarify, I think you're asking if, for versions of gcc which don't support -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3, objtool can analyze all C functions to ensure their stacks are 16-byte aligned. It's certainly possible, but I don't see how that solves the problem. The stack will still be misaligned by entry code. Or am I missing something?I think the argument is that we *could* try to align things, if we just had some tool that actually then verified that we aren't missing anything. I'm not entirely happy with checking the generated code, though, because as Ingo says, you have a 50:50 chance of just getting it right by mistake. So I'd much rather have some static tool that checks things at a code level (ie coccinelle or sparse).What I meant was checking the entry code to see if it aligns stack frames, and good luck getting sparse to do that. Hmm, getting 16-byte alignment for real may actually be entirely a lost cause. After all, I think we have some inline functions that do asm volatile ("call ..."), and I don't see any credible way of forcing alignment short of generating an entirely new stack frame and aligning that.
Actually we already found all such cases and fixed them by forcing a new stack frame, thanks to objtool. For example, see 55a76b59b5fe.
Ick. This whole situation stinks, and I wish that the gcc developers had been less daft here in the first place or that we'd noticed and gotten it fixed much longer ago. Can we come up with a macro like STACK_ALIGN_16 that turns into __aligned__(32) on bad gcc versions and combine that with your sparse patch?
-- Josh