Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Jan 2023 17:53:04 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] objtool: continue if find_insn() fails in decode_instructions() |
| |
* Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi Ingo, Happy New Year!
Happy New Year to you too! :-)
> On 07/01/23 15:51, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > Currently, decode_instructions() is failing if it is not able to find > > > instruction, and this is happening since commit dbcdbdfdf137b4 > > > ("objtool: Rework instruction -> symbol mapping") because it is > > > expecting instruction for STT_NOTYPE symbols. > > > > > > Due to this, the following objtool warnings are seen: > > > [1] arch/powerpc/kernel/optprobes_head.o: warning: objtool: optprobe_template_end(): can't find starting instruction > > > [2] arch/powerpc/kernel/kvm_emul.o: warning: objtool: kvm_template_end(): can't find starting instruction > > > [3] arch/powerpc/kernel/head_64.o: warning: objtool: end_first_256B(): can't find starting instruction > > > > > > The warnings are thrown because find_insn() is failing for symbols that > > > are at the end of the file, or at the end of the section. Given how > > > STT_NOTYPE symbols are currently handled in decode_instructions(), > > > continue if the instruction is not found, instead of throwing warning > > > and returning. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@linux.ibm.com> > > The SOB chain doesn't look valid: is Naveen N. Rao, the first SOB line, the > > author of the patch? If yes then a matching From: line is needed. > > > > Or if two people developed the patch, then Co-developed-by should be used: > > > > Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org> > > Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org> > > Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org> > > Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org> > > > > [ In this SOB sequence "Second Co-Author" is the one who submits the patch. ] > > > > [ Please only use Co-developed-by if actual lines of code were written by > > the co-author that created copyrightable material - it's not a courtesy > > tag. Reviewed-by/Acked-by/Tested-by can be used to credit non-code > > contributions. ] > Thank you for the clarification, and for bringing these points to my > attention. I'll keep these things in mind. In this case, since both Naveen > N. Rao and I developed the patch, the below tags > are applicable. > > Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org> > Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org> > Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org> > Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
... while filling in your real names & email addresses I suppose. ;-)
> > However, I would be dropping this particular patch, since I think Nick's > patch [1] is better to fix the objtool issue. > > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20221220101323.3119939-1-npiggin@gmail.com/
Ok, I'll pick up Nick's fix, with these tags added for the PowerPC regression aspect and your review:
Reported-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reported-by: Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@linux.ibm.com> Acked-by: Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@linux.ibm.com>
To document & credit the efforts of your patch.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |