Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:57:40 +0000 | From | Fenghua Yu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7/8] tools/objtool: Check for use of the ENQCMD instruction in the kernel |
| |
Hi, Josh,
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 05:55:40PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 03:26:14PM +0000, Fenghua Yu wrote: > > > > + } else if (op2 == 0x38 && op3 == 0xf8) { > > > > + if (insn.prefixes.nbytes == 1 && > > > > + insn.prefixes.bytes[0] == 0xf2) { > > > > + /* ENQCMD cannot be used in the kernel. */ > > > > + WARN("ENQCMD instruction at %s:%lx", sec->name, > > > > + offset); > > > > + > > > > + return -1; > > > > + } > > > > > > The only concern here is if we want it to be fatal or not. But otherwise > > > this seems to be all that's required. > > > > objtool doesn't fail kernel build on this fatal warning. > > > > Returning -1 here stops checking the rest of the file and won't report any > > further warnings unless this ENQCMD warning is fixed. Not returning -1 > > continues checking the rest of the file and may report more warnings. > > Seems that's the only difference b/w them. > > > > Should I keep this "return -1" or not? Please advice. > > I'd say remove the "return -1" since it's not a fatal-type analysis > error and there's nothing to prevent objtool from analyzing the rest of > the file.
Sure. It does make sense to remove "return -1". I will remove it.
Thanks.
-Fenghua
| |