[PATCH] x86: fix clang integrated assembler build

[Arnd Bergmann]

clang and gas seem to interpret the symbols in memmove_64.S and
memset_64.S differently, such that clang does not make them
'weak' as expected, which leads to a linker error, with both
ld.bfd and ld.lld:

ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: memmove
>>> defined at common.c
>>> kasan/common.o:(memmove) in archive mm/built-in.a
>>> defined at memmove.o:(__memmove) in archive arch/arm64/lib/lib.a

ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: memset
>>> defined at common.c
>>> kasan/common.o:(memset) in archive mm/built-in.a
>>> defined at memset.o:(__memset) in archive arch/arm64/lib/lib.a

Copy the exact way these are written in memcpy_64.S, which does
not have the same problem.

I don't know why this makes a difference, and it would be good
to have someone with a better understanding of assembler internals
review it.

It might be either a bug in the kernel or a bug in the assembler,
no idea which one. My patch makes it work with all versions of
clang and gcc, which is probably helpful even if it's a workaround
for a clang bug.

Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <ar...@arndb.de>
---
arch/x86/lib/memmove_64.S | 4 ++--
arch/x86/lib/memset_64.S | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/memmove_64.S b/arch/x86/lib/memmove_64.S
index 7ff00ea64e4f..dcca01434be8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/memmove_64.S
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/memmove_64.S
@@ -26,8 +26,8 @@
*/
.weak memmove

-SYM_FUNC_START_ALIAS(memmove)
-SYM_FUNC_START(__memmove)
+SYM_FUNC_START_ALIAS(__memmove)
+SYM_FUNC_START_LOCAL(memmove)

mov %rdi, %rax

diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/memset_64.S b/arch/x86/lib/memset_64.S
index 9ff15ee404a4..a97f2ea4e0b2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/memset_64.S
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/memset_64.S
@@ -19,8 +19,8 @@
*
* rax original destination
*/
-SYM_FUNC_START_ALIAS(memset)
-SYM_FUNC_START(__memset)
+SYM_FUNC_START_ALIAS(__memset)
+SYM_FUNC_START_LOCAL(memset)
/*
* Some CPUs support enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB feature. It is recommended
* to use it when possible. If not available, use fast string instructions.
--
2.26.2

[Nick Desaulniers]

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 7:16 AM Arnd Bergmann <ar...@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> clang and gas seem to interpret the symbols in memmove_64.S and
> memset_64.S differently, such that clang does not make them
> 'weak' as expected, which leads to a linker error, with both
> ld.bfd and ld.lld:
>
> ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: memmove
> >>> defined at common.c
> >>> kasan/common.o:(memmove) in archive mm/built-in.a
> >>> defined at memmove.o:(__memmove) in archive arch/arm64/lib/lib.a
>
> ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: memset
> >>> defined at common.c
> >>> kasan/common.o:(memset) in archive mm/built-in.a
> >>> defined at memset.o:(__memset) in archive arch/arm64/lib/lib.a
>
> Copy the exact way these are written in memcpy_64.S, which does
> not have the same problem.
>
> I don't know why this makes a difference, and it would be good
> to have someone with a better understanding of assembler internals
> review it.
>
> It might be either a bug in the kernel or a bug in the assembler,
> no idea which one. My patch makes it work with all versions of
> clang and gcc, which is probably helpful even if it's a workaround
> for a clang bug.
>
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <ar...@arndb.de>

+ Bill, Fangrui, Jian
I think we saw this bug or a very similar bug internally around the
ordering of .weak to .global.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clang Built Linux" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clang-built-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clang-built-linux/20200527141553.1768675-1-arnd%40arndb.de.



--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

[Bill Wendling]

I think that would be this patch by Fangrui:

  https://prodkernel-review.git.corp.google.com/c/kernel/release/9xx/+/292011

-bw

[Nick Desaulniers]

Thanks. That patch references this discussion:
https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20200325164257....@google.com/

--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers