From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Edgar E. Iglesias Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:12:27 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: Add support for bigger u-boot when CONFIG_POSITION_INDEPENDENT=y In-Reply-To: References: <8438394ae435af2b900b965622969dce96701b88.1599045314.git.michal.simek@xilinx.com> <63007c09-9db4-edfc-b4ec-edb8afbda62a@wwwdotorg.org> <39af5d48-ba07-5ec5-5246-c44278d991f3@arm.com> <83a61d14-9dca-6c54-3e20-068c3ed38163@wwwdotorg.org> <20200903190746.GD14249@toto> Message-ID: <20200903191227.GE14249@toto> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 01:10:48PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 9/3/20 1:07 PM, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 09:45:39AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 9/3/20 7:40 AM, Andr? Przywara wrote: > >>> On 03/09/2020 14:35, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 02. 09. 20 18:34, Stephen Warren wrote: > >>>>> On 9/2/20 5:15 AM, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>>>> From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When U-Boot binary exceeds 1MB with CONFIG_POSITION_INDEPENDENT=y > >>>>>> compilation error is shown: > >>>>>> /mnt/disk/u-boot/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/start.S:71:(.text+0x3c): relocation > >>>>>> truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_ADR_PREL_LO21 against symbol `__rel_dyn_end' > >>>>>> defined in .bss_start section in u-boot. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is caused by adr instruction which permits the calculation of any byte > >>>>>> address within +- 1MB of the current PC. > >>>>>> Because U-Boot is bigger then 1MB calculation is failing. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The patch is using adrp/add instructions where adrp shifts a signed, 21-bit > >>>>>> immediate left by 12 bits (4k page), adds it to the value of the program > >>>>>> counter with the bottom 12 bits cleared to zero. Then add instruction > >>>>>> provides the lower 12 bits which is offset within 4k page. > >>>>>> These two instructions together compose full 32bit offset which should be > >>>>>> more then enough to cover the whole u-boot size. > >>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/start.S b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/start.S > >>>>> > >>>>>> @@ -67,8 +67,10 @@ pie_fixup: > >>>>>> adr x0, _start /* x0 <- Runtime value of _start */ > >>>>>> ldr x1, _TEXT_BASE /* x1 <- Linked value of _start */ > >>>>>> sub x9, x0, x1 /* x9 <- Run-vs-link offset */ > >>>>>> - adr x2, __rel_dyn_start /* x2 <- Runtime &__rel_dyn_start */ > >>>>>> - adr x3, __rel_dyn_end /* x3 <- Runtime &__rel_dyn_end */ > >>>>>> + adrp x2, __rel_dyn_start /* x2 <- Runtime &__rel_dyn_start */ > >>>>>> + add x2, x2, #:lo12:__rel_dyn_start > >>>>>> + adrp x3, __rel_dyn_end /* x3 <- Runtime &__rel_dyn_end */ > >>>>>> + add x3, x3, #:lo12:__rel_dyn_end > >>>>>> pie_fix_loop: > >>>>>> ldp x0, x1, [x2], #16 /* (x0, x1) <- (Link location, fixup) */ > >>>>>> ldr x4, [x2], #8 /* x4 <- addend */ > >>>>> > >>>>> There are likely a bunch of other places in the code that need updating > >>>>> too; take a look at commit 49e93875a62f "arm64: support running at addr > >>>>> other than linked to" (which introduced the code above) to find other > >>>>> places with similar instruction sequences that almost certainly need > >>>>> updating. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I didn't hit any issue to have a need to update them. Definitely worth > >>>> to check that locations too. > >>> > >>> So I thought the same, so I checked at least this file. And while there > >>> are other "adr" instructions, they only go to nearby labels, so don't > >>> need to be pumped up. > >>> But I will try to grep for more cases as well. > >> > >> > >> So in the patch I linked to, what about the added ard instructions in > >> arch/arm/lib/crt0_64.S and arch/arm/lib/relocate_64.S? > >> > >> Perhaps that code gets linked more towards the middle of U-Boot than the > >> code you're fixing in start.S, so the max 1M offset just happens to > >> reach all the relevant symbols and relocations that are in your current > >> binary, but if your binary gets a little larger (e.g. goes from 1.05M to > >> 2M say) that code will fail in the same way? > > > > Yes, those were apparently already corrected by Ibai: > > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/commit/98ffbb78e12646a1d06236ad6a1893217f255aae#diff-4f864f65dc6b6f2535a5d252b7c9fcc7 > > Ah OK. > > So I guess this means that in practice, U-Boot already has the > limitation that the load (and relocation target?) address must be > 4K-aligned, since it uses the same instruction sequence we're > discusssing here. Apparently, yes. Anyway, we'll submit a patch tomorrow with the early trapping if not aligned. Cheers, Edgar