From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@armlinux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:03:29 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 0/8] ARM: clean up PC-relative arithmetic In-Reply-To: References: <1470238730-30038-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20160803181739.GL1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <20160804094940.GM1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20160804100329.GO1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 11:54:25AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 4 August 2016 at 11:49, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On 3 August 2016 at 20:17, Russell King - ARM Linux > >> wrote: > >> > I don't buy that argument, sorry, and the argument is actually wrong. > >> > No, we're _not_ letting the linker do the calculations for us, we're > >> > letting the linker do _some_ of the calculation, but not all. > >> > > >> > What you're replacing the above with is stuff like (I guess, because > >> > I've no idea what this :pc_g0: notation is): > >> > > >> > add rX, pc, #(sym - . - 8) & 0xff > >> > add rX, rX, #(sym - . - 4) & 0xff00 > >> > add rX, rX, #(sym - .) & 0xff0000 > >> > > >> > which I think is a more complex (and less obvious) way to calculate it. > >> > It's also buggy when we end up with a relative offset greater than 16MB, > >> > which we have in multi-zImage kernels. > >> > > >> > >> Even if you think this is a more complex way to calculate it, at least > >> it is encapsulated in a single macro instead of having similar but not > >> identical open coded instances all over the place. > > > > ... and, it may come as a shocker, but I don't have a problem with > > that. > > > >> As for the range: the ldr/str variants have 28 bits of range (2x > >> scaled 8 bit immediate for the adds and a single unscaled 12 bit > >> immediate for the ldr/str). The adr variant has 26 bits (3x scaled > >> immediate counting from bit 2) range for word aligned symbols, which > >> gives us +/- 64 MB, which should be plenty. The only pathological > >> outlier is allyesconfig, but that uses Thumb2 anyway. > > > > Our existing code allows for a range of the full address space - the only > > thing it relies upon is that the literal data is placed within reach of > > the code - which it will be, because it's always placed near the code > > which is using it. > > > >> The relocations documented here > >> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0044f/IHI0044F_aaelf.pdf > > > > Right, so it's an EABI thing, and I guess you haven't tested OABI > > builds, where I suspect these relocations aren't supported. > > > > I suppose that's a fair point. But then, I'm only 40 so I am too young > to remember this OABI stuff anyway. Does it require GCC 2.95 from your > toolchain museum? I'm sorry, but that's really no excuse, we're of similar ages, so... . And GCC 4 is capable of building OABI. OABI is going to have to live for a long time yet, I still rely on OABI - and this is something that most people ignored when I raised it in the EABI discussions - when I said that there needed to be a sane transition path between OABI and EABI which didn't involve "shut the machine down, totally replace the rootfs". I'm not at liberty to shut my machines down while I rebuild everything that's on them as EABI. So, OABI support will live on for as long as I'm involved in Linux and have a need for it. _All_ my pre-ARMv6 machines (which run everything I rely upon) are OABI. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.