[PATCH 1/8] ARM: assembler: introduce adr_l, ldr_l and str_l macros

[Dave.Martin@arm.com (Dave Martin)]

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 12:34:58PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 4 August 2016 at 11:44, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:40:31AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On 3 August 2016 at 18:49, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:38:43PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> [...]
> >> >> +#else
> >> >> +     add     \dst, pc, #:pc_g0_nc:(\sym) - 8
> >> >> +     add     \dst, \dst, #:pc_g1_nc:(\sym) - 4
> >> >> +     add     \dst, \dst, #:pc_g2:(\sym)
> >> >
> >> > Whoah.  I've never seen this syntax before...  does this work for any
> >> > named reloc, or just for certain blessed relocs?  (I'm also _assuming_
> >> > the assembler support for this functionality is ancient -- if not,
> >> > there may be toolchain compatibility issues.)
> >> >
> >> > Based on my understanding of how these relocs work, this should do the
> >> > right thing, though.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Second question: for arm, this reduces the range addressable to
> >> > pc +/- 26-bit offset (24-bit if sym is not word aligned, but that
> >> > probably never happens).
> >> >
> >> > I can't remember the de facto limit on the size of vmlinux for arm --
> >> > are you sure this extra limitation won't break some cases of huge
> >> > initramfs where adr_l gets used for cross-section references?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, that seems a valid concern. We have +/- 64 MB for the adr_l
> >> variant (as you say, for word aligned symbols), but this may be
> >> insufficient. The ldr/str variants don't have the same limitation.
> >
> > True, but they're still limited, I think in effect to +/- 256 MB.
> >
> 
> Yes. I managed to hack around the limitation by doing this
> 
> .macro adr_fwd, dst, sym, tmp
> add \dst, pc, #:pc_g0_nc:(\sym) - 8
> add \dst, \dst, #:pc_g1_nc:(\sym) - 4
> .reloc ., R_ARM_LDR_PC_G2, \sym
> mov \tmp, #0
> add \dst, \dst, \tmp
> .endm
> 
> but it is becoming very hacky, and this only works for forward
> references anyway.

Indeed.  You can't use relocs on different insns than they're intended
for.

The linker is allowed to assume that the initial insn is a valid one
for the reloc -- without this, the addend couldn't be encoded reliably.
In this case, the linker might replace the MOV with an LDR, a MOV with
the wrong offset, or garbage.

> So I think this is a dead end. Series withdrawn.

Neat idea, but it's a shame about the limitations and compatibility
issues.

The more conventional literal-.long approach could still be macro-ised
along the same lines, which might make the affected code more readable,
but the idiom you'd be replacing is well-understood and not very common.

Cheers
---Dave