On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 02:19:18PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-02-14 11:40, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:36:56PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On 2020-02-13 15:38, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > >  	.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.

> But if we're going to clean things up, I'd rather we actually do that.
> The only time __bp_harden_hyp_vecs_end is used is when computing the
> size of the vectors, and that'd better be BP_HARDEN_EL2_SLOTS * 2kB
> (which can be statically asserted at compile time).

OK, I'll drop this bit of the patch and send a separate change for this
since it's more than a direct substitution.

For reference the underlying goal here is to be able to use
SYM_FUNC_START to add BTI annotations to assembly functions for
in-kernel BTI, the cleanup is just a byproduct.

> > > 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.

> I don't think we need this. The macros should do the right thing, and
> be fixed if they don't.

OK, I'll just use a regular annotation - the explicit .align isn't
documented so I don't really know what it's supposed to be doing.