[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 02/10] x86: assembly, FUNC_START for fn, DATA_START for data
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:46:16AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 03/22/2017, 08:25 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi! > > >> > > >>> -ENTRY(saved_rbp) .quad 0 > > >>> -ENTRY(saved_rsi) .quad 0 > > >>> -ENTRY(saved_rdi) .quad 0 > > >>> -ENTRY(saved_rbx) .quad 0 > > >>> +SYM_DATA_START(saved_rbp) .quad 0 > > >>> +SYM_DATA_START(saved_rsi) .quad 0 > > >>> +SYM_DATA_START(saved_rdi) .quad 0 > > >>> +SYM_DATA_START(saved_rbx) .quad 0 > > >> > > >> Does it make sense to call it SYM_DATA_*START* when there's no > > >> corresponding end? > > > > > > That looks like a bug - I think we should strive for them to always be in > > > pairs. > > > > > > Jiri, Josh, could objtool help here perhaps, to detect 'non-terminated' > > > SYM_*_START() uses? This could be done by emitting debug data into a > > > special > > > section and then analyzing that section for unpaired entries. The section > > > can be > > > discarded in the final link, it won't show up in the kernel image. > > > > It should be easier than that. No introduction of other info needed -- > > every global symbol without a ".type" or ".size" (i.e. SYM_*_END) should > > be a bug now. > > I'm all for that! It would be easy to add this checking to objtool since it already reads the symbol table. The hard part is figuring out the logistics. :-) - Should the warnings be on by default? - Part of the "objtool check" command or something else? - Separate config option or just include it with CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION? - Should all asm files be checked, including those currently skipped by objtool with OBJECT_FILES_NON_STANDARD? > Can we detect double ends as well - i.e. do a build check of the full syntax > of > these symbol definition primitives? Detecting double ends would be a little trickier. The second SYM_*_END supersedes the first, so that information isn't in the ELF symbol table. We could use a special section to annotate all the macro uses and have objtool do the checking, similar to what you suggested earlier. Or, here's a much easier way to do it, without involving objtool: --- a/include/linux/linkage.h +++ b/include/linux/linkage.h @@ -138,9 +138,17 @@ name: #endif +#ifndef CHECK_DUP_SYM_END +#define CHECK_DUP_SYM_END(name) \ + .pushsection .discard.sym_func_end ASM_NL \ + SYM_END_##name: .byte 0 ASM_NL \ + .popsection +#endif + /* SYM_END -- use only if you have to */ #ifndef SYM_END #define SYM_END(name, sym_type) \ + CHECK_DUP_SYM_END(name) ASM_NL \ .type name sym_type ASM_NL \ .size name, .-name #endif If there's an extra SYM_*_END, the build fails. For example, if I add an extra SYM_FUNC_END(\name) to the THUNK macro: AS arch/x86/entry/thunk_64.o arch/x86/entry/thunk_64.S: Assembler messages: arch/x86/entry/thunk_64.S:42: Error: symbol `SYM_END_trace_hardirqs_on_thunk' is already defined arch/x86/entry/thunk_64.S:43: Error: symbol `SYM_END_trace_hardirqs_off_thunk' is already defined arch/x86/entry/thunk_64.S:47: Error: symbol `SYM_END_lockdep_sys_exit_thunk' is already defined arch/x86/entry/thunk_64.S:51: Error: symbol `SYM_END____preempt_schedule' is already defined arch/x86/entry/thunk_64.S:52: Error: symbol `SYM_END____preempt_schedule_notrace' is already defined scripts/Makefile.build:395: recipe for target 'arch/x86/entry/thunk_64.o' failed -- Josh _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |