Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 May 2019 18:11:46 -0500 | From | Josh Poimboeuf <> | Subject | Re: [RFC V2 00/16] objtool: Add support for Arm64 |
| |
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:50:57PM +0000, Raphael Gault wrote: > Hi Josh, > > Thanks for offering your help and sorry for the late answer. > > My understanding is that a table of offsets is built by GCC, those > offsets being scaled by 4 before adding them to the base label. > I believe the offsets are stored in the .rodata section. To find the > size of that table, it is needed to find a comparison, which can be > optimized out apprently. In that case the end of the array can be found > by locating labels pointing to data behind it (which is not 100% safe). > > On 5/16/19 3:29 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 11:36:39AM +0100, Raphael Gault wrote: > >> Noteworthy points: > >> * I still haven't figured out how to detect switch-tables on arm64. I > >> have a better understanding of them but still haven't implemented checks > >> as it doesn't look trivial at all. > > > > Switch tables were tricky to get right on x86. If you share an example > > (or even just a .o file) I can take a look. Hopefully they're somewhat > > similar to x86 switch tables. Otherwise we may want to consider a > > different approach (for example maybe a GCC plugin could help annotate > > them). > > > > The case which made me realize the issue is the one of > arch/arm64/kernel/module.o:apply_relocate_add: > > ``` > What seems to happen in the case of module.o is: > 334: 90000015 adrp x21, 0 <do_reloc> > which retrieves the location of an offset in the rodata section, and a > bit later we do some extra computation with it in order to compute the > jump destination: > 3e0: 78625aa0 ldrh w0, [x21, w2, uxtw #1] > 3e4: 10000061 adr x1, 3f0 <apply_relocate_add+0xf8> > 3e8: 8b20a820 add x0, x1, w0, sxth #2 > 3ec: d61f0000 br x0 > ``` > > Please keep in mind that the actual offsets might vary. > > I'm happy to provide more details about what I have identified if you > want me to.
Thanks. I'll try to take a deeper look.
Were these patches based on tip/master? There were some minor conflicts in arch/arm64/Kconfig and arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile.
I'm also getting a build failure on arm64:
make[4]: *** No rule to make target '/root/linux/tools/objtool/arch/arm64/arch_special.o', needed by '/root/linux/tools/objtool/arch/arm64/objtool-in.o'. Stop
It looks like arch/arm64/Build and arch/x86/Build are trying to build from arch_special.c which doesn't exist.
-- Josh
| |