lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [powerpc] ftrace warning kernel/trace/ftrace.c:2068 with code-patching selftests
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 15:55, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:59:31PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 14:24, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:07:03PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > I suppose that on arm64, we can work around this by passing
> > > > --apply-dynamic-relocs to the linker, so that all R_AARCH64_RELATIVE
> > > > targets are prepopulated with the link time value of the respective
> > > > addresses. It does cause some bloat, which is why we disable that
> > > > today, but we could make that dependent on ftrace being enabled.
> > >
> > > We'd also need to teach the build-time sort to update the relocations, unless
> > > you mean to also change the boot-time reloc code to RMW with the offset?
> >
> > Why would that be necessary? Every RELA entry has the same effect on
> > its target address, as it just adds a fixed offset.
>
> Currently in relocate_kernel() we generate the absolute address from the
> relocation alone, with the core of the relocation logic being as follows, with
> x9 being the pointer to a RELA entry, and x23 being the offset relative to the
> default load address:
>
> ldp x12, x13, [x9], #24
> ldr x14, [x9, #-8]
>
> add x14, x14, x23 // relocate
> str x14, [x12, x23]
>
> ... and (as per another reply), a sample RELA entry currently contains:
>
> 0xffff8000090b1ab0 // default load VA of pointer to update
> 0x0000000000000403 // R_AARCH64_RELATIVE
> 0xffff8000090b6000 // default load VA of addr to write
>
> So either:
>
> * That code stays as-is, and we must update the relocs to correspond to their
> new sorted locations, or we'll blat the sorted values with the original
> relocs as we do today.
>
> * The code needs to change to RMW: read the existing value, add the offset
> (ignoring the content of the RELA entry's addend field), and write it back.
> This is what I meant when I said "change the boot-time reloc code to RMW with
> the offset".
>
> Does that make sense, or have I misunderstood?
>

No you're right. We'd have to use different sequences here depending
on whether the relocation target is populated or not, which currently
we don't care about.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-27 16:03    [W:1.181 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site