From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 16 (objtool: warnings)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:30:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <553df45e-57fe-1066-ee4f-0dcd023c24c6@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YNCgxwLBiK9wclYJ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 6/21/21 7:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 03:34:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:50:49AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 4/16/21 4:36 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Changes since 20210415:
>>>
>>>
>>> on x86_64, objtool is not liking retpoline.o:
>>>
>>> $ gcc --version
>>> gcc (SUSE Linux) 7.5.0
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there already a patch for these?
>>>
>>>
>>> ===== build-r8840.out =====
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rax()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rbx()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rcx()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rdx()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rsi()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rdi()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rbp()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r8()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r9()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r10()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r11()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r12()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r13()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r14()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r15()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>>
>> Damn, sorry I missed this. I know what the problem is, but I've yet to
>> find a solution that's not terrible... hold on.
>
> ---
> Subject: objtool/x86: Ignore __x86_indirect_alt_* symbols
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Date: Mon Jun 21 16:13:55 CEST 2021
>
> Because the __x86_indirect_alt* symbols are just that, objtool will
> try and validate them as regular symbols, instead of the alternative
> replacements that they are.
>
> This goes sideways for FRAME_POINTER=y builds; which generate a fair
> amount of warnings.
>
> Fixes: 9bc0bb50727c ("objtool/x86: Rewrite retpoline thunk calls")
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Looks good in my testing. Thanks.
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> # build-tested
> ---
> arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S
> @@ -58,12 +58,16 @@ SYM_FUNC_START_NOALIGN(__x86_indirect_al
> 2: .skip 5-(2b-1b), 0x90
> SYM_FUNC_END(__x86_indirect_alt_call_\reg)
>
> +STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD(__x86_indirect_alt_call_\reg)
> +
> SYM_FUNC_START_NOALIGN(__x86_indirect_alt_jmp_\reg)
> ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE
> 1: jmp *%\reg
> 2: .skip 5-(2b-1b), 0x90
> SYM_FUNC_END(__x86_indirect_alt_jmp_\reg)
>
> +STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD(__x86_indirect_alt_jmp_\reg)
> +
> .endm
>
> /*
>
--
~Randy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-21 23:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-16 11:36 linux-next: Tree for Apr 16 Stephen Rothwell
2021-04-16 17:50 ` linux-next: Tree for Apr 16 (objtool: warnings) Randy Dunlap
2021-06-21 13:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-21 14:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-21 17:53 ` [tip: objtool/urgent] objtool/x86: Ignore __x86_indirect_alt_* symbols tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-21 23:30 ` Randy Dunlap [this message]
2021-04-16 18:53 ` linux-next: Tree for Apr 16 (IMA appraise causing build error) Randy Dunlap
2021-04-16 20:25 ` Nayna
2021-04-16 20:32 ` Randy Dunlap
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=553df45e-57fe-1066-ee4f-0dcd023c24c6@infradead.org \
--to=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).