From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Raphael Gault <Raphael.Gault@arm.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
Julien Thierry <Julien.Thierry@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/6] objtool: arm64: Adapt the stack frame checks and the section analysis for the arm architecture
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:56:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190424165640.5yeg2yicl7ej7g3i@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cd86ce1a-7c6a-9ebf-4c84-6cb6ffd88017@arm.com>
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 04:32:44PM +0000, Raphael Gault wrote:
> >> diff --git a/tools/objtool/arch/arm64/decode.c b/tools/objtool/arch/arm64/decode.c
> >> index 0feb3ae3af5d..8b293eae2b38 100644
> >> --- a/tools/objtool/arch/arm64/decode.c
> >> +++ b/tools/objtool/arch/arm64/decode.c
> >> @@ -105,6 +105,33 @@ unsigned long arch_compute_rela_sym_offset(int addend)
> >> return addend;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * In order to know if we are in presence of a sibling
> >> + * call and not in presence of a switch table we look
> >> + * back at the previous instructions and see if we are
> >> + * jumping inside the same function that we are already
> >> + * in.
> >> + */
> >> +bool arch_is_insn_sibling_call(struct instruction *insn)
> >> +{
> >> +struct instruction *prev;
> >> +struct list_head *l;
> >> +struct symbol *sym;
> >> +list_for_each_prev(l, &insn->list) {
> >> +prev = (void *)l;
> >> +if (!prev->func
> >> +|| prev->func->pfunc != insn->func->pfunc)
> >> +return false;
> >> +if (prev->stack_op.src.reg != ADR_SOURCE)
> >> +continue;
> >> +sym = find_symbol_containing(insn->sec, insn->immediate);
> >> +if (!sym || sym->type != STT_FUNC
> >> +|| sym->pfunc != insn->func->pfunc)
> >> +return true;
> >> +break;
> >> +}
> >> +return true;
> >> +}
> >
> > I get the feeling there might be a better way to do this, but I can't
> > figure out what this function is actually doing. It looks like it
> > searches backwards in the function for an instruction which has
> > stack_op.src.reg != ADR_SOURCE -- what does that mean? And why doesn't
> > it do anything with the instruction after it finds it?
> >
>
> I will indeed try to make it better.
I still don't quite get what it's trying to accomplish, but I wonder if
there's some kind of tracking you can add in validate_branch() to keep
track of whatever you're looking for, leading up to the indirect jump.
> >> -hash_add(file->insn_hash, &insn->hash, insn->offset);
> >> +/*
> >> + * For arm64 architecture, we sometime split instructions so that
> >> + * we can track the state evolution (i.e. load/store of pairs of registers).
> >> + * We thus need to take both into account and not erase the previous ones.
> >> + */
> >
> > Ew... Is this an architectural thing, or just a quirk of the arm64
> > decoder?
> >
>
> The motivation for this is to simulate the two consecutive operations
> that would be executed on x86 but are done in one on arm64. This is
> strictly a decoder related quirk. I don't know if there is a better way
> to do it without modifying the struct op_src and struct instruction.
Ah. Which ops are those? Hopefully we can find a better way to
represent that with a single instruction. Adding fake instructions is
fragile.
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-24 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-09 13:52 [PATCH 0/6] objtool: Add support for Arm64 Raphael Gault
2019-04-09 13:52 ` [RFC 1/6] objtool: Refactor code to make it more suitable for multiple architecture support Raphael Gault
2019-04-23 20:13 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-24 16:11 ` Raphael Gault
2019-04-24 16:17 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-09 13:52 ` [RFC 2/6] objtool: arm64: Add required implementation for supporting the aarch64 architecture in objtool Raphael Gault
2019-04-09 16:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-23 20:18 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-24 16:16 ` Raphael Gault
2019-04-24 16:23 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-09 13:52 ` [RFC 3/6] objtool: arm64: Adapt the stack frame checks and the section analysis for the arm architecture Raphael Gault
2019-04-09 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-09 16:24 ` Mark Rutland
2019-04-09 16:27 ` Julien Thierry
2019-04-09 16:33 ` Raphaël Gault
2019-04-23 20:36 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-24 16:32 ` Raphael Gault
2019-04-24 16:56 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2019-04-25 8:12 ` Raphael Gault
2019-04-25 8:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-25 16:25 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-30 12:20 ` Raphael Gault
2019-05-01 15:09 ` Raphael Gault
2019-04-24 10:36 ` Julien Thierry
2019-04-09 13:52 ` [RFC 4/6] arm64: assembler: Add macro to annotate asm function having non standard stack-frame Raphael Gault
2019-04-24 10:44 ` Julien Thierry
2019-04-09 13:52 ` [RFC 5/6] arm64: sleep: Add stack frame setup for __cpu_supsend_enter Raphael Gault
2019-04-23 20:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-09 13:52 ` [RFC 6/6] objtool: arm64: Enable stack validation for arm64 Raphael Gault
2019-04-09 14:57 ` [PATCH 0/6] objtool: Add support for Arm64 Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-09 17:43 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-04-10 3:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-10 7:20 ` Julien Thierry
2019-04-23 21:09 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-04-24 16:08 ` Raphael Gault
2019-04-24 16:14 ` Josh Poimboeuf
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=20190424165640.5yeg2yicl7ej7g3i@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
--cc=Julien.Thierry@arm.com \
--cc=Raphael.Gault@arm.com \
--cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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 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).