On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:36:56PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-02-13 15:38, Mark Brown wrote:

> > -ENTRY(__kvm_call_hyp)
> > +SYM_FUNC_START(__kvm_call_hyp)

> I'm not convinced by this particular change. _kvm_call_hyp is called
> directly from
> C, and behaves almost like a normal function. What's the issue here?

I'm not sure I understand your comment here - this is annotated as
SYM_FUNC_ which is the annotation for things that look like normal
C functions.

> >  	.align	11
> > -ENTRY(__bp_harden_hyp_vecs_start)
> > +SYM_CODE_START_NOALIGN(__bp_harden_hyp_vecs)
> > +SYM_INNER_LABEL(__bp_harden_hyp_vecs_start, SYM_L_GLOBAL)

> Why isn't SYM_CODE_START_NOALIGN enough? And what is the rational for

The _start and _end labels that were there before are explicitly
referenced by code, removing them would break the build.

> the _NOALIGN, btw? I'd expect an alignment of 2kB to be more than enough.

So that the explicit .align above takes effect rather than anything the
macro decides to do, I'm trying to err on the side of caution here.