All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: kvm: Annotate assembly using modern annoations
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:40:27 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200214114027.GA4827@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b25323d02c76441ee12c206f07907383@kernel.org>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1057 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 151 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: kvm: Annotate assembly using modern annoations
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:40:27 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200214114027.GA4827@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b25323d02c76441ee12c206f07907383@kernel.org>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1057 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-02-14 11:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-13 15:38 [PATCH] arm64: kvm: Annotate assembly using modern annoations Mark Brown
2020-02-13 15:38 ` Mark Brown
2020-02-13 21:36 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-13 21:36   ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-14 11:40   ` Mark Brown [this message]
2020-02-14 11:40     ` Mark Brown
2020-02-14 14:19     ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-14 14:19       ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-14 14:52       ` Mark Brown
2020-02-14 14:52         ` Mark Brown
2020-02-14 15:04       ` Mark Brown
2020-02-14 15:04         ` Mark Brown

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=20200214114027.GA4827@sirena.org.uk \
    --to=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.