* [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] lib/stack: Restrengthen base_address
@ 2024-09-04 14:51 Andrew Jones
2024-09-11 0:55 ` Nicholas Piggin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Jones @ 2024-09-04 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvm, kvm-riscv
Cc: pbonzini, thuth, npiggin, atishp, cade.richard, jamestiotio
commit a1f2b0e1efd5 ("treewide: lib/stack: Make base_address arch
specific") made base_address() a weak function in order to allow
architectures to override it. Linking for EFI doesn't seem to figure
out the right one to use though [anymore?]. It must have worked at
one point because the commit calls outs EFI as the motivation.
Anyway, just drop the weakness in favor of another HAVE_ define.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@linux.dev>
---
lib/riscv/asm/stack.h | 1 +
lib/riscv/stack.c | 2 +-
lib/stack.c | 10 ++++++----
lib/stack.h | 2 +-
4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/riscv/asm/stack.h b/lib/riscv/asm/stack.h
index f003ca37c913..708fa4215007 100644
--- a/lib/riscv/asm/stack.h
+++ b/lib/riscv/asm/stack.h
@@ -8,5 +8,6 @@
#define HAVE_ARCH_BACKTRACE_FRAME
#define HAVE_ARCH_BACKTRACE
+#define HAVE_ARCH_BASE_ADDRESS
#endif
diff --git a/lib/riscv/stack.c b/lib/riscv/stack.c
index 2cd7f012738b..a143c22a570a 100644
--- a/lib/riscv/stack.c
+++ b/lib/riscv/stack.c
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
#ifdef CONFIG_RELOC
extern char ImageBase, _text, _etext;
-bool arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
+bool base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
{
unsigned long ra = (unsigned long)rebased_addr;
unsigned long base = (unsigned long)&ImageBase;
diff --git a/lib/stack.c b/lib/stack.c
index 086fec544a81..e1c981085176 100644
--- a/lib/stack.c
+++ b/lib/stack.c
@@ -12,9 +12,10 @@
#define MAX_DEPTH 20
#ifdef CONFIG_RELOC
+#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BASE_ADDRESS
extern char _text, _etext;
-bool __attribute__((weak)) arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
+bool base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
{
unsigned long ra = (unsigned long)rebased_addr;
unsigned long start = (unsigned long)&_text;
@@ -26,8 +27,9 @@ bool __attribute__((weak)) arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned
*addr = ra - start;
return true;
}
+#endif
#else
-bool __attribute__((weak)) arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
+bool base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
{
*addr = (unsigned long)rebased_addr;
return true;
@@ -45,13 +47,13 @@ static void print_stack(const void **return_addrs, int depth,
/* @addr indicates a non-return address, as expected by the stack
* pretty printer script. */
if (depth > 0 && !top_is_return_address) {
- if (arch_base_address(return_addrs[0], &addr))
+ if (base_address(return_addrs[0], &addr))
printf(" @%lx", addr);
i++;
}
for (; i < depth; i++) {
- if (arch_base_address(return_addrs[i], &addr))
+ if (base_address(return_addrs[i], &addr))
printf(" %lx", addr);
}
printf("\n");
diff --git a/lib/stack.h b/lib/stack.h
index df076d94bf8f..c92112c1744d 100644
--- a/lib/stack.h
+++ b/lib/stack.h
@@ -34,6 +34,6 @@ static inline int backtrace_frame(const void *frame, const void **return_addrs,
}
#endif
-bool __attribute__((weak)) arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr);
+bool base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr);
#endif
--
2.46.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] lib/stack: Restrengthen base_address
2024-09-04 14:51 [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] lib/stack: Restrengthen base_address Andrew Jones
@ 2024-09-11 0:55 ` Nicholas Piggin
2024-09-11 8:38 ` Andrew Jones
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nicholas Piggin @ 2024-09-11 0:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Jones, kvm, kvm-riscv
Cc: pbonzini, thuth, atishp, cade.richard, jamestiotio
On Thu Sep 5, 2024 at 12:51 AM AEST, Andrew Jones wrote:
> commit a1f2b0e1efd5 ("treewide: lib/stack: Make base_address arch
> specific") made base_address() a weak function in order to allow
> architectures to override it. Linking for EFI doesn't seem to figure
> out the right one to use though [anymore?]. It must have worked at
> one point because the commit calls outs EFI as the motivation.
> Anyway, just drop the weakness in favor of another HAVE_ define.
I prefer HAVE_ style than weak so fine by me.
How is the linker not resolving it properly? Some calls still
point to weak symbol despite non-weak symbol also existing?
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@linux.dev>
> ---
> lib/riscv/asm/stack.h | 1 +
> lib/riscv/stack.c | 2 +-
> lib/stack.c | 10 ++++++----
> lib/stack.h | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/riscv/asm/stack.h b/lib/riscv/asm/stack.h
> index f003ca37c913..708fa4215007 100644
> --- a/lib/riscv/asm/stack.h
> +++ b/lib/riscv/asm/stack.h
> @@ -8,5 +8,6 @@
>
> #define HAVE_ARCH_BACKTRACE_FRAME
> #define HAVE_ARCH_BACKTRACE
> +#define HAVE_ARCH_BASE_ADDRESS
>
> #endif
> diff --git a/lib/riscv/stack.c b/lib/riscv/stack.c
> index 2cd7f012738b..a143c22a570a 100644
> --- a/lib/riscv/stack.c
> +++ b/lib/riscv/stack.c
> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
> #ifdef CONFIG_RELOC
> extern char ImageBase, _text, _etext;
>
> -bool arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
> +bool base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
> {
> unsigned long ra = (unsigned long)rebased_addr;
> unsigned long base = (unsigned long)&ImageBase;
> diff --git a/lib/stack.c b/lib/stack.c
> index 086fec544a81..e1c981085176 100644
> --- a/lib/stack.c
> +++ b/lib/stack.c
> @@ -12,9 +12,10 @@
> #define MAX_DEPTH 20
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_RELOC
> +#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BASE_ADDRESS
> extern char _text, _etext;
>
> -bool __attribute__((weak)) arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
> +bool base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
> {
> unsigned long ra = (unsigned long)rebased_addr;
> unsigned long start = (unsigned long)&_text;
> @@ -26,8 +27,9 @@ bool __attribute__((weak)) arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned
> *addr = ra - start;
> return true;
> }
> +#endif
> #else
> -bool __attribute__((weak)) arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
> +bool base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
> {
> *addr = (unsigned long)rebased_addr;
> return true;
Shouldn't HAVE_ARCH_BASE_ADDRESS also cover this?
Thanks,
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] lib/stack: Restrengthen base_address
2024-09-11 0:55 ` Nicholas Piggin
@ 2024-09-11 8:38 ` Andrew Jones
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Jones @ 2024-09-11 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicholas Piggin
Cc: kvm, kvm-riscv, pbonzini, thuth, atishp, cade.richard,
jamestiotio
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 10:55:34AM GMT, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Thu Sep 5, 2024 at 12:51 AM AEST, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > commit a1f2b0e1efd5 ("treewide: lib/stack: Make base_address arch
> > specific") made base_address() a weak function in order to allow
> > architectures to override it. Linking for EFI doesn't seem to figure
> > out the right one to use though [anymore?]. It must have worked at
> > one point because the commit calls outs EFI as the motivation.
> > Anyway, just drop the weakness in favor of another HAVE_ define.
>
> I prefer HAVE_ style than weak so fine by me.
>
> How is the linker not resolving it properly? Some calls still
> point to weak symbol despite non-weak symbol also existing?
Yeah, I noticed traces stopped working with EFI because it was using the
weak version of the function instead of the riscv non-weak version.
Since I'm 99% sure it used to work, then I need to find time to try and
figure out if it's something that changed in k-u-t that is now confusing
the toolchain or a toolchain regression. (It's on the TODO, but there's
lots of stuff on the TODO...)
>
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@linux.dev>
> > ---
> > lib/riscv/asm/stack.h | 1 +
> > lib/riscv/stack.c | 2 +-
> > lib/stack.c | 10 ++++++----
> > lib/stack.h | 2 +-
> > 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/riscv/asm/stack.h b/lib/riscv/asm/stack.h
> > index f003ca37c913..708fa4215007 100644
> > --- a/lib/riscv/asm/stack.h
> > +++ b/lib/riscv/asm/stack.h
> > @@ -8,5 +8,6 @@
> >
> > #define HAVE_ARCH_BACKTRACE_FRAME
> > #define HAVE_ARCH_BACKTRACE
> > +#define HAVE_ARCH_BASE_ADDRESS
> >
> > #endif
> > diff --git a/lib/riscv/stack.c b/lib/riscv/stack.c
> > index 2cd7f012738b..a143c22a570a 100644
> > --- a/lib/riscv/stack.c
> > +++ b/lib/riscv/stack.c
> > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
> > #ifdef CONFIG_RELOC
> > extern char ImageBase, _text, _etext;
> >
> > -bool arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
> > +bool base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
> > {
> > unsigned long ra = (unsigned long)rebased_addr;
> > unsigned long base = (unsigned long)&ImageBase;
> > diff --git a/lib/stack.c b/lib/stack.c
> > index 086fec544a81..e1c981085176 100644
> > --- a/lib/stack.c
> > +++ b/lib/stack.c
> > @@ -12,9 +12,10 @@
> > #define MAX_DEPTH 20
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_RELOC
> > +#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BASE_ADDRESS
> > extern char _text, _etext;
> >
> > -bool __attribute__((weak)) arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
> > +bool base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
> > {
> > unsigned long ra = (unsigned long)rebased_addr;
> > unsigned long start = (unsigned long)&_text;
> > @@ -26,8 +27,9 @@ bool __attribute__((weak)) arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned
> > *addr = ra - start;
> > return true;
> > }
> > +#endif
> > #else
> > -bool __attribute__((weak)) arch_base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
> > +bool base_address(const void *rebased_addr, unsigned long *addr)
> > {
> > *addr = (unsigned long)rebased_addr;
> > return true;
>
> Shouldn't HAVE_ARCH_BASE_ADDRESS also cover this?
Yes, I suppose that would be the cleanest thing to do. And then in
lib/$ARCH/asm/stack.h we should have
#ifdef CONFIG_RELOC
#define HAVE_ARCH_BASE_ADDRESS
#endif
when the arch wants to use the implementation here (which is probably
would).
Thanks,
drew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-09-11 8:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-09-04 14:51 [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] lib/stack: Restrengthen base_address Andrew Jones
2024-09-11 0:55 ` Nicholas Piggin
2024-09-11 8:38 ` Andrew Jones
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).