Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Don't use asm goto for put_user() with GCC 4.9

Christophe Leroy writes: > Le 03/11/2020 à 14:29, Michael Ellerman a écrit : >> Andreas reported that commit ee0a49a6870e ("powerpc/uaccess: Switch >> __put_user_size_allowed() to __put_user_asm_goto()") broke >> CLONE_CHILD_SETTID. >> >> Further inspection showed that the put_user() in schedule_

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Don't use asm goto for put_user() with GCC 4.9

Le 03/11/2020 à 19:58, Segher Boessenkool a écrit : On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 03:43:55PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: Le 03/11/2020 à 14:29, Michael Ellerman a écrit : For now though let's just not use asm goto with GCC 4.9, to avoid this bug and any other issues we haven't noticed yet. Poss

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Don't use asm goto for put_user() with GCC 4.9

On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 03:43:55PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Le 03/11/2020 à 14:29, Michael Ellerman a écrit : > >For now though let's just not use asm goto with GCC 4.9, to avoid this > >bug and any other issues we haven't noticed yet. Possibly in future we > >can find a smaller workaround.

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Don't use asm goto for put_user() with GCC 4.9

Quoting Christophe Leroy : Le 03/11/2020 à 14:29, Michael Ellerman a écrit : Andreas reported that commit ee0a49a6870e ("powerpc/uaccess: Switch __put_user_size_allowed() to __put_user_asm_goto()") broke CLONE_CHILD_SETTID. Further inspection showed that the put_user() in schedule_tail() was

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Don't use asm goto for put_user() with GCC 4.9

Le 03/11/2020 à 14:29, Michael Ellerman a écrit : Andreas reported that commit ee0a49a6870e ("powerpc/uaccess: Switch __put_user_size_allowed() to __put_user_asm_goto()") broke CLONE_CHILD_SETTID. Further inspection showed that the put_user() in schedule_tail() was missing entirely, the store