Re: [PATCH v4 07/14] arm64: Add support for suppressing warning backtraces

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 05:40:59PM +0100, Alessandro Carminati wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 1:25 PM Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 11:43:22AM +0000, Alessandro Carminati wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h
> > > index 28be048db3f6..044c5e24a17d 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/bug.h
> > > @@ -11,8 +11,14 @@
> > >
> > >  #include <asm/asm-bug.h>
> > >
> > > +#ifdef HAVE_BUG_FUNCTION
> > > +# define __BUG_FUNC  __func__
> > > +#else
> > > +# define __BUG_FUNC  NULL
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > >  #define __BUG_FLAGS(flags)                           \
> > > -     asm volatile (__stringify(ASM_BUG_FLAGS(flags)));
> > > +     asm volatile (__stringify(ASM_BUG_FLAGS(flags, %c0)) : : "i" (__BUG_FUNC));
> >
> > Why is 'i' the right asm constraint to use here? It seems a bit odd to
> > use that for a pointer.
> 
> I received this code as legacy from a previous version.
> In my review, I considered the case when HAVE_BUG_FUNCTION is defined:
> Here, __BUG_FUNC is defined as __func__, which is the name of the
> current function as a string literal.
> Using the constraint "i" seems appropriate to me in this case.
> 
> However, when HAVE_BUG_FUNCTION is not defined:
> __BUG_FUNC is defined as NULL. Initially, I considered it literal 0,
> but after investigating your concern, I found:
> 
> ```
> $ echo -E "#include <stdio.h>\n#include <stddef.h>\nint main()
> {\nreturn 0;\n}" | aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc -E -dM - | grep NULL
> #define NULL ((void *)0)
> ```
> 
> I realized that NULL is actually a pointer that is not a link time
> symbol, and using the "i" constraint with NULL may result in undefined
> behavior.
> 
> Would the following alternative definition for __BUG_FUNC be more convincing?
> 
> ```
> #ifdef HAVE_BUG_FUNCTION
>     #define __BUG_FUNC __func__
> #else
>     #define __BUG_FUNC (uintptr_t)0
> #endif
> ```
> Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks for the analysis; I hadn't noticed this specific issue, it just
smelled a bit fishy. Anyway, the diff above looks better, thanks.

Will