[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 6/9] livepatch: Initial ARM64 support.
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:21:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 15.08.16 at 01:07, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > --- a/xen/common/Kconfig > > +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig > > @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ endmenu > > config LIVEPATCH > > bool "Live patching support (TECH PREVIEW)" > > default n > > - depends on X86 && HAS_BUILD_ID = "y" > > + depends on (X86 || ARM_64) && HAS_BUILD_ID = "y" > > Would this better become a black list? OK, that would make it easier. > > > @@ -711,9 +711,15 @@ static int prepare_payload(struct payload *payload, > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > } > > +#ifndef CONFIG_ARM > > apply_alternatives_nocheck(start, end); > > +#else > > + apply_alternatives(start, sec->sec->sh_size); > > +#endif > > Conditionals like this are ugly - can't this be properly abstracted? Yes, I can introduce an apply_alternatives_nocheck on ARM that will hava the same set of arguments on x86. Or I can make a new function name? > > > --- a/xen/include/xen/elfstructs.h > > +++ b/xen/include/xen/elfstructs.h > > @@ -103,6 +103,15 @@ typedef uint64_t Elf64_Xword; > > (ehdr).e_ident[EI_MAG2] == ELFMAG2 && \ > > (ehdr).e_ident[EI_MAG3] == ELFMAG3) > > > > +/* e_flags */ > > +#define EF_ARM_EABI_MASK 0xff000000 > > +#define EF_ARM_EABI_UNKNOWN 0x00000000 > > +#define EF_ARM_EABI_VER1 0x01000000 > > +#define EF_ARM_EABI_VER2 0x02000000 > > +#define EF_ARM_EABI_VER3 0x03000000 > > +#define EF_ARM_EABI_VER4 0x04000000 > > +#define EF_ARM_EABI_VER5 0x05000000 > > Aren't these ARM32 definitions, which should be unneeded for > ARM64 support? Correct. Let me move that and also the arch/arm/arm32/livepatch:arch_livepatch_verify_elf code out of this patch. > > > @@ -171,6 +180,7 @@ typedef struct { > > #define EM_PPC 20 /* PowerPC */ > > #define EM_PPC64 21 /* PowerPC 64-bit */ > > #define EM_ARM 40 /* Advanced RISC Machines ARM */ > > +#define EM_AARCH64 183 /* ARM 64-bit */ > > #define EM_ALPHA 41 /* DEC ALPHA */ > > #define EM_SPARCV9 43 /* SPARC version 9 */ > > #define EM_ALPHA_EXP 0x9026 /* DEC ALPHA */ > > I think this tries to be sorted by number. > > > +/* > > + * S - address of symbol. > > + * A - addend for relocation (r_addend) > > + * P - address of the dest being relocated (derieved from r_offset) > > + * NC - No check for overflow. > > + * > > + * The defines also use _PREL for PC-relative address, and _NC is No Check. > > + */ > > +#define R_AARCH64_ABS64 257 /* Direct 64 bit. S+A, NC*/ > > +#define R_AARCH64_ABS32 258 /* Direct 32 bit. S+A */ > > +#define R_AARCH64_PREL64 260 /* S+A-P, NC */ > > +#define R_AARCH64_PREL32 261 /* S+A-P */ > > + > > +#define R_AARCH64_ADR_PREL_LO21 274 /* ADR imm, [20:0]. S+A-P */ > > +#define R_AARCH64_ADR_PREL_PG_HI21 275 /* ADRP imm, [32:12]. Page(S+A) - > > Page(P).*/ > > +#define R_AARCH64_ADD_ABS_LO12_NC 277 /* ADD imm. [11:0]. S+A, NC */ > > + > > +#define R_AARCH64_CONDBR19 280 /* Bits 20:2, S+A-P */ > > +#define R_AARCH64_JUMP26 282 /* Bits 27:2, S+A-P */ > > +#define R_AARCH64_CALL26 283 /* Bits 27:2, S+A-P */ > > No R_AARCH64_TSTBR14? > > > +#define R_AARCH64_LDST16_ABS_LO12_NC 284 /* LD/ST to bits 11:1, S+A, > > NC */ > > +#define R_AARCH64_LDST32_ABS_LO12_NC 285 /* LD/ST to bits 11:2, S+A, > > NC */ > > +#define R_AARCH64_LDST64_ABS_LO12_NC 286 /* LD/ST to bits 11:3, S+A, > > NC */ > > +#define R_AARCH64_LDST8_ABS_LO12_NC 278 /* LD/ST to bits 11:0, S+A, > > NC */ > > What about R_AARCH64_LDST128_ABS_LO12_NC? I didnt' see it in the ELF of xen-syms or the livepatch tests cases so I omitted them. But then I added some that weren't in the ELF files either: LDST16 and LDST8. I will add the two missing ones and also sort this. Thanks! > > Jan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |