lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/11] RISC-V: Resolve the issue of loadable module on 64-bit
From
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:54:14 PDT (-0700), shea@shealevy.com wrote:
> Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:34:19 PDT (-0700), zongbox@gmail.com wrote:
>>> 2018-03-14 5:30 GMT+08:00 Shea Levy <shea@shealevy.com>:
>>>> Hi Palmer,
>>>>
>>>> Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 01:35:05 PDT (-0700), zong@andestech.com wrote:
>>>>>> These patches resolve the some issues of loadable module.
>>>>>> - symbol out of ranges
>>>>>> - unknown relocation types
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reference of external variable and function symbols
>>>>>> cannot exceed 32-bit offset ranges in kernel module.
>>>>>> The module only can work on the 32-bit OS or the 64-bit
>>>>>> OS with sv32 virtual addressing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These patches will generate the .got, .got.plt and
>>>>>> .plt sections during loading module, let it can refer
>>>>>> to the symbol which locate more than 32-bit offset.
>>>>>> These sections depend on the relocation types:
>>>>>> - R_RISCV_GOT_HI20
>>>>>> - R_RISCV_CALL_PLT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These patches also support more relocation types
>>>>>> - R_RISCV_CALL
>>>>>> - R_RISCV_HI20
>>>>>> - R_RISCV_LO12_I
>>>>>> - R_RISCV_LO12_S
>>>>>> - R_RISCV_RVC_BRANCH
>>>>>> - R_RISCV_RVC_JUMP
>>>>>> - R_RISCV_ALIGN
>>>>>> - R_RISCV_ADD32
>>>>>> - R_RISCV_SUB32
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zong Li (11):
>>>>>> RISC-V: Add sections of PLT and GOT for kernel module
>>>>>> RISC-V: Add section of GOT.PLT for kernel module
>>>>>> RISC-V: Support GOT_HI20/CALL_PLT relocation type in kernel module
>>>>>> RISC-V: Support CALL relocation type in kernel module
>>>>>> RISC-V: Support HI20/LO12_I/LO12_S relocation type in kernel module
>>>>>> RISC-V: Support RVC_BRANCH/JUMP relocation type in kernel modulewq
>>>>>> RISC-V: Support ALIGN relocation type in kernel module
>>>>>> RISC-V: Support ADD32 relocation type in kernel module
>>>>>> RISC-V: Support SUB32 relocation type in kernel module
>>>>>> RISC-V: Enable module support in defconfig
>>>>>> RISC-V: Add definition of relocation types
>>>>>>
>>>>>> arch/riscv/Kconfig | 5 ++
>>>>>> arch/riscv/Makefile | 3 +
>>>>>> arch/riscv/configs/defconfig | 2 +
>>>>>> arch/riscv/include/asm/module.h | 112 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/elf.h | 24 +++++
>>>>>> arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>>> arch/riscv/kernel/module-sections.c | 156 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> arch/riscv/kernel/module.c | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>> arch/riscv/kernel/module.lds | 8 ++
>>>>>> 9 files changed, 480 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>> create mode 100644 arch/riscv/include/asm/module.h
>>>>>> create mode 100644 arch/riscv/kernel/module-sections.c
>>>>>> create mode 100644 arch/riscv/kernel/module.lds
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the second set of patches that turn on modules, and it has the same
>>>>> R_RISCV_ALIGN problem as the other one
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/2018-February/000081.html
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like this one uses shared libraries for modules instead of static
>>>>> objects. I think using shared objects is the right thing to do, as it'll allow
>>>>> us to place modules anywhere in the address space by having multiple GOTs and
>>>>> PLTs.
>>>>
>>>> Can you expand on this? It was my understanding that outside of the
>>>> context of multiple address spaces sharing code the GOT and PLT were
>>>> simply unnecessary overhead, what benefit would they bring here?
>>>>
>>>>> That's kind of complicated, though, so we can start with something
>>>>> simpler like this.
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The kernel module is a object file, it is not be linked by linker, the
>>> GOT and PLT
>>> sections will not be generated through -fPIC option, but it will
>>> generate the relative
>>> relocation type. As Palmer mention before, If we have GOT and PLT sections,
>>> we can put the module anywhere, even we support the KASLR in the kernel.
>>
>> Sorry, I guess I meant PIC objects not shared objects (I keep forgetting about
>> PIE). We'll probably eventually add large code model targets, but they might
>> end up just being functionally equilivant to PIE with multi-GOT and multi-PLT
>> so it might not matter.
>>
>> Either way, this is the sanest way to do it for now.
>>
>>> For the ALIGN problem, the kernel module loader is difficult to remove
>>> or migrate
>>> the module's code like relax doing, so the remnant nop instructions harm the
>>> performance, I agree the point that adding the mno-relax option and checking
>>> the alignment in ALIGN type in module loader.
>>
>> Sounds good. I just merged the mno-relax stuff, it'll show up when I get
>> around to generating a 7.3.0 backport branch. For now I think you should just
>> fail on R_RISCV_ALIGN and attempt to pass -mno-relax to the compiler (via
>> something like "$(call cc-option,-mno-relax)", like we do for
>> "-mstrict-align"). I don't think it's worth handling R_RISCV_ALIGN in the
>> kernel, as that's essentially the same as full relaxation support.
>>
>
> Should we unconditionally fail on R_RISCV_ALIGN or only if the code
> isn't already aligned?

Either way is OK for me. With '-mno-relax' there shouldn't be any
R_RISCV_ALIGN relocations, so it shouldn't matter.

>>
>>>>> That's kind of complicated, though, so we can start with something
>>>>> simpler like this.
>>>
>>> So what is the suggestion for that.
>>
>> Well, I'm not really sure -- essentially the idea of proper multi-GOT and
>> multi-PLT support would be to merge the GOTs and PLTs of modules together when
>> they're within range of each other. We haven't even figured this out in
>> userspace yet, so it's probably not worth attempting for kernel modules for a
>> bit.
>>
>> If I understand your code correctly, you're currently generating one GOT and
>> one PLT per loaded module. If that's the case, then this is correct, it's just
>> possible to save some memory by merging these tables. It's probably not worth
>> the complexity for kernel modules for a while.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-14 18:09    [W:0.109 / U:0.892 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site