On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 01:33:15PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:09:31AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:46:24PM +0000, Woodhouse, David wrote: > > > Getting objtool to understand retpolines is going to be a bit of a > > > challenge. For now, take advantage of the fact that retpolines are > > > patched in with alternatives. Just read the original (sane) > > > non-alternative instruction, and ignore the patched-in retpoline. > > > > > > This allows objtool to understand the control flow *around* the > > > retpoline, even if it can't yet follow what's inside. This means the > > > ORC unwinder will fail to unwind from inside a retpoline, but will work > > > fine otherwise. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf > > > Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse > > > --- > > > tools/objtool/check.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > > tools/objtool/check.h | 2 +- > > > 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c > > > index de053fb..f40d46e 100644 > > > --- a/tools/objtool/check.c > > > +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c > > > @@ -428,6 +428,40 @@ static void add_ignores(struct objtool_file *file) > > > } > > > > > > /* > > > + * FIXME: For now, just ignore any alternatives which add retpolines. This is > > > + * a temporary hack, as it doesn't allow ORC to unwind from inside a retpoline. > > > + * But it at least allows objtool to understand the control flow *around* the > > > + * retpoline. > > > + */ > > > +static int add_nospec_ignores(struct objtool_file *file) > > > +{ > > > + struct section *sec; > > > + struct rela *rela; > > > + struct instruction *insn; > > > + > > > + sec = find_section_by_name(file->elf, ".rela.discard.nospec"); > > > + if (!sec) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > + list_for_each_entry(rela, &sec->rela_list, list) { > > > + if (rela->sym->type != STT_SECTION) { > > > + WARN("unexpected relocation symbol type in %s", sec->name); > > > + return -1; > > > + } > > > + > > > + insn = find_insn(file, rela->sym->sec, rela->addend); > > > + if (!insn) { > > > + WARN("bad .discard.nospec entry"); > > > + return -1; > > > + } > > > + > > > + insn->ignore_alts = true; > > > + } > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > +/* > > > * Find the destination instructions for all jumps. > > > */ > > > static int add_jump_destinations(struct objtool_file *file) > > > @@ -509,11 +543,18 @@ static int add_call_destinations(struct objtool_file *file) > > > dest_off = insn->offset + insn->len + insn->immediate; > > > insn->call_dest = find_symbol_by_offset(insn->sec, > > > dest_off); > > > + /* > > > + * FIXME: Thanks to retpolines, it's now considered > > > + * normal for a function to call within itself. So > > > + * disable this warning for now. > > > + */ > > > +#if 0 > > > if (!insn->call_dest) { > > > WARN_FUNC("can't find call dest symbol at offset 0x%lx", > > > insn->sec, insn->offset, dest_off); > > > return -1; > > > } > > > +#endif > > > > This crashes for me in is_fentry_call(). > > > > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > > is_fentry_call (insn=, insn=) at check.c:1113 > > 1113 if (insn->type == INSN_CALL && > > (gdb) info stack > > #0 is_fentry_call (insn=, insn=) at check.c:1113 > > #1 validate_branch (file=0x7ffffff7e440, first=0x7ffffff7e128, state=...) at check.c:1747 > > #2 0x0000000000404bd3 in validate_branch (file=0x7ffffff7e440, first=0x7ffffff7e128, state=...) at check.c:1770 > > #3 0x0000000000406783 in validate_functions (file=) at check.c:1933 > > #4 check (_objname=0x6bb9d0 "", _no_fp=40, no_unreachable=4, orc=false) at check.c:2006 > > #5 0x00000000004021c1 in handle_internal_command (argv=0x7fffffffe5c0, argc=4) at objtool.c:108 > > #6 main (argc=4, argv=0x7fffffffe5c0) at objtool.c:131 > > > > This is not entirely surprising, since insn->call_dest is NULL and > > is_fentry_call() doesn't expect that. > > > > How is this supposed to work ? What am I missing ? > > Not sure, does your gcc have retpolines? Give me your .o file and I can > diagnose it. > Yes, it does, only it is the gcc from the Google toolchain which may generate different code than the upstream version. I attached an affected object file. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Thanks, Guenter