Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/uaccess: Fix inline assembly for clang build on PPC32

From: David Laight <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 22:19:39 +0000

On Tue,  3 Feb 2026 08:30:41 +0100
"Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Test robot reports the following error with clang-16.0.6:
> 
>    In file included from kernel/rseq.c:75:
>    include/linux/rseq_entry.h:141:3: error: invalid operand for instruction
>                    unsafe_get_user(offset, &ucs->post_commit_offset, efault);
>                    ^
>    include/linux/uaccess.h:608:2: note: expanded from macro 'unsafe_get_user'
>            arch_unsafe_get_user(x, ptr, local_label);      \
>            ^
>    arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h:518:2: note: expanded from macro 'arch_unsafe_get_user'
>            __get_user_size_goto(__gu_val, __gu_addr, sizeof(*(p)), e); \
>            ^
>    arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h:284:2: note: expanded from macro '__get_user_size_goto'
>            __get_user_size_allowed(x, ptr, size, __gus_retval);    \
>            ^
>    arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h:275:10: note: expanded from macro '__get_user_size_allowed'
>            case 8: __get_user_asm2(x, (u64 __user *)ptr, retval);  break;  \
>                    ^
>    arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h:258:4: note: expanded from macro '__get_user_asm2'
>                    "       li %1+1,0\n"                    \
>                     ^
>    <inline asm>:7:5: note: instantiated into assembly here
>            li 31+1,0
>               ^
>    1 error generated.
> 
> On PPC32, for 64 bits vars a pair of registers is used. Usually the
> lower register in the pair is the high part and the higher register is
> the low part. GCC uses r3/r4 ... r11/r12 ... r14/r15 ... r30/r31
> 
> In older kernel code inline assembly was using %1 and %1+1 to represent
> 64 bits values. However here it looks like clang uses r31 as high part,
> allthough r32 doesn't exist hence the error.
> 
> Allthoug %1+1 should work, most places now use %L1 instead of %1+1, so
> let's do the same here.
> 
> With that change, the build doesn't fail anymore and a disassembly shows
> clang uses r17/r18 and r31/r14 pair when GCC would have used r16/r17 and
> r30/r31:

Isn't it all horribly worse than that?
It only failed because clang picked r31, but if can pick two non-adjacent
registers might it not pick any pair.
In which case there could easily be a 64bit get_user() that reads an incorrect
value and corrupts another register.
Find one and you might have a privilege escalation.

	David 

> 
> 	Disassembly of section .fixup:
> 
> 	00000000 <.fixup>:
> 	   0:	38 a0 ff f2 	li      r5,-14
> 	   4:	3a 20 00 00 	li      r17,0
> 	   8:	3a 40 00 00 	li      r18,0
> 	   c:	48 00 00 00 	b       c <.fixup+0xc>
> 				c: R_PPC_REL24	.text+0xbc
> 	  10:	38 a0 ff f2 	li      r5,-14
> 	  14:	3b e0 00 00 	li      r31,0
> 	  18:	39 c0 00 00 	li      r14,0
> 	  1c:	48 00 00 00 	b       1c <.fixup+0x1c>
> 				1c: R_PPC_REL24	.text+0x144
> 
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email-masked]>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/[email-masked]/
> Fixes: c20beffeec3c ("powerpc/uaccess: Use flexible addressing with __put_user()/__get_user()")
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) <[email-masked]>
> ---
> I set Fixes: tag to the commit that recently replaced %1+1 by %L1 in the main part of the macro as the fix would be uncomplete otherwise but the problem has been there since commit 2df5e8bcca53 ("powerpc: merge uaccess.h")
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
> index ba1d878c3f404..570b3d91e2e40 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
> @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ __gus_failed:								\
>  		".section .fixup,\"ax\"\n"		\
>  		"4:	li %0,%3\n"			\
>  		"	li %1,0\n"			\
> -		"	li %1+1,0\n"			\
> +		"	li %L1,0\n"			\
>  		"	b 3b\n"				\
>  		".previous\n"				\
>  		EX_TABLE(1b, 4b)			\