lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: Tree for Jun 23 (objtool (2))
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:56:21PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 08:06:07AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > On 6/22/20 11:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes since 20200622:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > on x86_64:
> > > >
> > > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.o: warning: objtool: mce_timed_out()+0x24: unreachable instruction
> > > > kernel/exit.o: warning: objtool: __x64_sys_exit_group()+0x14: unreachable instruction
> > > >
> > > > Full randconfig file is attached.
> > >
> > > More livepatch...
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > Both are known and I thought Josh had fixes queued somewhere for both, but
> > my memory fails me quite often. See below.
>
> I did have fixes for some of them in a stash somewhere, but I never
> finished them because I decided it's a GCC bug.

Same here.

> > However, I think it is time to decide how to approach this whole saga. It
> > seems that there are not so many places in the kernel in need of
> > __noreturn annotation in the end and as jikos argued at least some of
> > those should be fixed regardless.
>
> I would agree that global functions like do_group_exit() deserve a
> __noreturn annotation, though it should be in the header file. But
> static functions shouldn't need it.

Agreed. I'll post the patches for global functions eventually, but see
below first.

> > Josh, should I prepare proper patches and submit them to relevant
> > maintainers to see where this path is going?
>
> If that's how you want to handle it, ok, but it doesn't seem right to
> me, for the static functions at least.
>
> > It would be much better to fix it in GCC, but it has been like banging
> > one's head against a wall so far. Josh, you wanted to create a bug
> > for GCC in this respect in the past? Has that happened?
>
> I didn't open a bug, but I could, if you think that would help. I
> haven't had a lot of success with GCC bugs in the past.

Understood.

> > If I remember correctly, we discussed briefly a possibility to cope with
> > that in objtool, but no solution was presented.
>
> That would also feel like a GCC workaround and might impede objtool's
> ability to find bugs like this one, and possibly more serious bugs.
>
> > Removing -flive-patching is also a possibility. I don't like it much, but
> > we discussed it with Petr M. a couple of months ago and it might be a way
> > too.
>
> -flive-patching has many problems which I outlined before. None of them
> have been addressed. I still feel the same way, that it should be
> reverted until it's ready. Otherwise it's a drain on upstream.
>
> Also, if the GCC developers won't acknowledge this bug then it doesn't
> give me confidence in their ability to keep the feature working as
> optimizations are added or changed.

I must admit that I've started to share the sentiment recently. And it is
probably the main reason for changing my mind about the whole thing.

> I still think a potential alternative exists: objtool could be used as a
> simple tree-wide object diff tool by generating a checksum for each
> function. Then the patch can be applied and built to see exactly which
> functions have changed, based on the changed checksums. In which case
> this feature would no longer be needed anyway, would you agree?

Yes.

> I also think that could be a first step for converging our patch
> creation processes.

Yes again.

Petr, would you agree to revert -flive-patching due to reasons above? Is
there anything you want to add?

Miroslav

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-15 13:12    [W:0.053 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site