Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sat, 23 Jan 2021 13:54:47 +0000 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] KVM: arm64: Remove hyp_symbol_addr |
| |
On Tue, 05 Jan 2021 18:05:41 +0000, David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com> wrote: > > Hyp code used the hyp_symbol_addr helper to force PC-relative addressing > because absolute addressing results in kernel VAs due to the way hyp > code is linked. This is not true anymore, so remove the helper and > update all of its users. > > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h | 26 ------------------------ > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h | 4 ++-- > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/hyp-smp.c | 4 ++-- > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/psci-relay.c | 24 +++++++++++----------- > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/vgic-v2-cpuif-proxy.c | 2 +- > 5 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h > index 8a33d83ea843..22d933e9b59e 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h > @@ -199,32 +199,6 @@ extern void __vgic_v3_init_lrs(void); > > extern u32 __kvm_get_mdcr_el2(void); > > -#if defined(GCC_VERSION) && GCC_VERSION < 50000 > -#define SYM_CONSTRAINT "i" > -#else > -#define SYM_CONSTRAINT "S" > -#endif > - > -/* > - * Obtain the PC-relative address of a kernel symbol > - * s: symbol > - * > - * The goal of this macro is to return a symbol's address based on a > - * PC-relative computation, as opposed to a loading the VA from a > - * constant pool or something similar. This works well for HYP, as an > - * absolute VA is guaranteed to be wrong. Only use this if trying to > - * obtain the address of a symbol (i.e. not something you obtained by > - * following a pointer). > - */ > -#define hyp_symbol_addr(s) \ > - ({ \ > - typeof(s) *addr; \ > - asm("adrp %0, %1\n" \ > - "add %0, %0, :lo12:%1\n" \ > - : "=r" (addr) : SYM_CONSTRAINT (&s)); \ > - addr; \ > - }) > -
This hunk is going to conflict in a fairly benign way with the removal of the GCC workaround which I think Will queued for 5.12. I'll work something out...
Thanks,
M.
-- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
| |