[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:54:08 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 22/25] x86/asm: annotate indirect jumps
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:59:55AM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 9:46 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 08:29:24PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 03:11:41PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > > > CONFIG_XEN
> > > >
> > > > __switch_to_asm()+0x0: undefined stack state
> > > > xen_hypercall_set_trap_table()+0x0: <=== (sym)
> >
> > With your branch + GCC 9 I can recreate all the warnings except this
> > one.
>
> In a gcc build this warning is replaced with a different one:
>
> vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: __startup_secondary_64()+0x7: return with
> modified stack frame
>
> This just seems to depend on which function is placed right after the
> code in xen-head.S. With gcc, the disassembly looks like this:
>
> 0000000000000000 <asm_cpu_bringup_and_idle>:
> 0: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 5 <asm_cpu_bringup_and_idle+0x5>
> 1: R_X86_64_PLT32 cpu_bringup_and_idle-0x4
> 5: e9 f6 0f 00 00 jmpq 1000
> <xen_hypercall_set_trap_table>
> ...
> 0000000000001000 <xen_hypercall_set_trap_table>:
> ...
> ...
> 0000000000002000 <__startup_secondary_64>:
>
> With Clang+LTO, we end up with __switch_to_asm here instead of
> __startup_secondary_64.
I still don't see this warning for some reason.
Is it fixed by adding cpu_bringup_and_idle() to global_noreturns[] in
tools/objtool/check.c?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
