lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3 11/12] powerpc: Remove unreachable() from WARN_ON()
From


Le 30/06/2022 à 11:58, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>
>
> Le 30/06/2022 à 10:05, Naveen N. Rao a écrit :
>> Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> Hi Sathvika,
>>>
>>> Adding ARM people as they seem to face the same kind of problem (see
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kbuild/patch/20220623014917.199563-33-chenzhongjin@huawei.com/)
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 27/06/2022 à 17:35, Sathvika Vasireddy a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> On 25/06/22 12:16, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 24/06/2022 à 20:32, Sathvika Vasireddy a écrit :
>>>>>> objtool is throwing *unannotated intra-function call*
>>>>>> warnings with a few instructions that are marked
>>>>>> unreachable. Remove unreachable() from WARN_ON()
>>>>>> to fix these warnings, as the codegen remains same
>>>>>> with and without unreachable() in WARN_ON().
>>>>> Did you try the two exemples described in commit 1e688dd2a3d6
>>>>> ("powerpc/bug: Provide better flexibility to WARN_ON/__WARN_FLAGS()
>>>>> with
>>>>> asm goto") ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Without your patch:
>>>>>
>>>>> 00000640 <test>:
>>>>>    640:    81 23 00 84     lwz     r9,132(r3)
>>>>>    644:    71 29 40 00     andi.   r9,r9,16384
>>>>>    648:    40 82 00 0c     bne     654 <test+0x14>
>>>>>    64c:    80 63 00 0c     lwz     r3,12(r3)
>>>>>    650:    4e 80 00 20     blr
>>>>>    654:    0f e0 00 00     twui    r0,0
>>>>>
>>>>> 00000658 <test9w>:
>>>>>    658:    2c 04 00 00     cmpwi   r4,0
>>>>>    65c:    41 82 00 0c     beq     668 <test9w+0x10>
>>>>>    660:    7c 63 23 96     divwu   r3,r3,r4
>>>>>    664:    4e 80 00 20     blr
>>>>>    668:    0f e0 00 00     twui    r0,0
>>>>>    66c:    38 60 00 00     li      r3,0
>>>>>    670:    4e 80 00 20     blr
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With your patch:
>>>>>
>>>>> 00000640 <test>:
>>>>>    640:    81 23 00 84     lwz     r9,132(r3)
>>>>>    644:    71 29 40 00     andi.   r9,r9,16384
>>>>>    648:    40 82 00 0c     bne     654 <test+0x14>
>>>>>    64c:    80 63 00 0c     lwz     r3,12(r3)
>>>>>    650:    4e 80 00 20     blr
>>>>>    654:    0f e0 00 00     twui    r0,0
>>>>>    658:    4b ff ff f4     b       64c <test+0xc>        <==
>>>>>
>>>>> 0000065c <test9w>:
>>>>>    65c:    2c 04 00 00     cmpwi   r4,0
>>>>>    660:    41 82 00 0c     beq     66c <test9w+0x10>
>>>>>    664:    7c 63 23 96     divwu   r3,r3,r4
>>>>>    668:    4e 80 00 20     blr
>>>>>    66c:    0f e0 00 00     twui    r0,0
>>>>>    670:    38 60 00 00     li      r3,0            <==
>>>>>    674:    4e 80 00 20     blr                <==
>>>>>    678:    38 60 00 00     li      r3,0
>>>>>    67c:    4e 80 00 20     blr
>>>>>
>>>> The builtin variant of unreachable (__builtin_unreachable()) works.
>>>>
>>>> How about using that instead of unreachable() ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> In fact the problem comes from the macro annotate_unreachable() which
>>> is called by unreachable() before calling __build_unreachable().
>>>
>>> Seems like this macro adds (after the unconditional trap twui) a call
>>> to an empty function whose address is listed in section
>>> .discard.unreachable
>>>
>>>      1c78:       00 00 e0 0f     twui    r0,0
>>>      1c7c:       55 e7 ff 4b     bl      3d0
>>> <qdisc_root_sleeping_lock.part.0>
>>>
>>>
>>> RELOCATION RECORDS FOR [.discard.unreachable]:
>>> OFFSET           TYPE              VALUE
>>> 0000000000000000 R_PPC64_REL32     .text+0x00000000000003d0
>>>
>>> The problem is that that function has size 0:
>>>
>>> 00000000000003d0 l     F .text    0000000000000000
>>> qdisc_root_sleeping_lock.part.0
>>>
>>>
>>> And objtool is not prepared for a function with size 0.
>>
>> annotate_unreachable() seems to have been introduced in commit
>> 649ea4d5a624f0 ("objtool: Assume unannotated UD2 instructions are dead
>> ends").
>>
>> Objtool considers 'ud2' instruction to be fatal, so BUG() has
>> __builtin_unreachable(), rather than unreachable(). See commit
>> bfb1a7c91fb775 ("x86/bug: Merge annotate_reachable() into _BUG_FLAGS()
>> asm"). For the same reason, __WARN_FLAGS() is annotated with
>> _ASM_REACHABLE so that objtool can differentiate warnings from a BUG().
>>
>> On powerpc, we use trap variants for both and don't have a special
>> instruction for a BUG(). As such, for _WARN_FLAGS(), using
>> __builtin_unreachable() suffices to achieve optimal code generation
>> from the compiler. Objtool would consider subsequent instructions to
>> be reachable. For BUG(), we can continue to use unreachable() so that
>> objtool can differentiate these from traps used in warnings.
>
> Not sure I understand what you mean.
>
> __WARN_FLAGS() and BUG() both use 'twui' which is unconditionnal trap,
> as such both are the same.
>
> On the other side, WARN_ON() and BUG_ON() use tlbnei which is a
> conditionnel trap.
>
>>
>>>
>>> The following changes to objtool seem to fix the problem, most
>>> warning are gone with that change.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/objtool/elf.c b/tools/objtool/elf.c
>>> index 63218f5799c2..37c0a268b7ea 100644
>>> --- a/tools/objtool/elf.c
>>> +++ b/tools/objtool/elf.c
>>> @@ -77,6 +77,8 @@ static int symbol_by_offset(const void *key, const
>>> struct rb_node *node)
>>>
>>>       if (*o < s->offset)
>>>           return -1;
>>> +    if (*o == s->offset && !s->len)
>>> +        return 0;
>>>       if (*o >= s->offset + s->len)
>>>           return 1;
>>>
>>> @@ -400,7 +402,7 @@ static void elf_add_symbol(struct elf *elf,
>>> struct symbol *sym)
>>>        * Don't store empty STT_NOTYPE symbols in the rbtree.  They
>>>        * can exist within a function, confusing the sorting.
>>>        */
>>> -    if (!sym->len)
>>> +    if (sym->type == STT_NOTYPE && !sym->len)
>>>           rb_erase(&sym->node, &sym->sec->symbol_tree);
>>>   }
>>
>> Is there a reason to do this, rather than change __WARN_FLAGS() to use
>> __builtin_unreachable()? Or, are you seeing an issue with
>> unreachable() elsewhere in the kernel?
>>
>
> At the moment I'm trying to understand what the issue is, and explore
> possible fixes. I guess if we tell objtool that after 'twui' subsequent
> instructions are unreachable, then __builtin_unreachable() is enough.

I get a nice result with the following changes (on top of Sathvika's
series):

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h
index df6c11e008b9..73f5650f98df 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@

#define BUG() do { \
BUG_ENTRY("twi 31, 0, 0", 0); \
- unreachable(); \
+ __builtin_unreachable(); \
} while (0)
#define HAVE_ARCH_BUG

@@ -97,6 +97,7 @@
__label__ __label_warn_on; \
\
WARN_ENTRY("twi 31, 0, 0", BUGFLAG_WARNING | (flags), __label_warn_on); \
+ __builtin_unreachable(); \
\
__label_warn_on: \
break; \
diff --git a/tools/objtool/arch/powerpc/decode.c
b/tools/objtool/arch/powerpc/decode.c
index 06fc0206bf8e..9a0303304923 100644
--- a/tools/objtool/arch/powerpc/decode.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/arch/powerpc/decode.c
@@ -68,6 +68,8 @@ int arch_decode_instruction(struct objtool_file *file,
const struct section *sec
}
break;
}
+ if (insn == 0x0fe00000) /* twui */
+ *type = INSN_BUG;

return 0;
}
---
Christophe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-30 12:35    [W:0.117 / U:5.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site