[PATCH] jump_label: align jump_entry table to at least 4-bytes

Jason Baron
2017-02-28T19:34:52Z

On 02/28/2017 02:22 PM, David Daney wrote:
> On 02/28/2017 11:05 AM, David Daney wrote:
>> On 02/28/2017 10:39 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
>>>
> [...]
>>>> I suspect that the alignment of the __jump_table section in the .ko
>>>> files is not correct, and you are seeing some sort of problem due to
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Yes, if you look at the trace that Sachin sent the module being loaded
>>> that does the WARN_ON() is nfsd.ko.
>>>
>>> That module from Sachin's trace has:
>>>
>>> [31] __jump_table PROGBITS 0000000000000000 03fd77 0000c0
>>> 18 WAM 0 0 1
>>
>> The problem is then the section alignment (last column) for power.
>>
>> On mips with no patches applied, we get:
>>
>> [17] __jump_table PROGBITS 0000000000000000 00d2c0 000048
>> 00 WA 0 0 8
>>
>> Look, proper alignment!
>>
>> The question I have is why do the power ".llong" and ".long" assembler
>> directives not force section alignment? Is there an alternative that
>> could be used that would result in the proper alignment? Would ".word"
>> work?
>>
>> If not, then I would say patch only power with your balign thing. 8-byte
>> alignment for 64-bit kernel, 4-byte alignment for 32-bit kernel
>>
>
> I think the proper fix is either:
>
> A) Modify scripts/module-common.lds to force __jump_table alignment for
> all architectures.
>
> B) Add arch/powerpc/kernel/module.lds to force __jump_table alignment
> for powerpc only.
>
> David.
>
>

Ok, I can try adding it to the linger script.

FWIW, here is my before and after with the .balign thing for the nfsd.ko
module on powperc (using a cross-compiler):

before:

[31] __jump_table PROGBITS 0000000000000000 03ee3e 0000f0
00 WA 0 0 1

after:

[31] __jump_table PROGBITS 0000000000000000 03ee40 0000f0
00 WA 0 0 4

Thanks,

-Jason

>
>>
>>>
>>> So its not the size but rather the start offset '03fd77', that is the
>>> problem here. That is what the WARN_ON triggers on, that the start of
>>> the table is not 4-byte aligned.
>>>
>>> Using a ppc cross-compiler and the ENTSIZE patch that line does not
>>> change, however if I use the initial patch posted in this thread, the
>>> start does align to 4-bytes and thus the warning goes away, as Sachin
>>> verified. In fact, without the patch I found several modules that don't
>>> start at the proper alignment, however with the patch that started this
>>> thread they were all properly aligned.
>>>
>>> In terms of the '.balign' causing holes, we originally added the
>>> '_ASM_ALIGN' to x86 for precisely this reason. See commit:
>>> ef64789 jump label: Add _ASM_ALIGN for x86 and x86_64 and discussion.
>>>
>>> In addition, we have a lot of runtime with the .balign in the tree and
>>> I'm not aware of any holes in the table. I think the code would blow up
>>> pretty badly if there were.
>>>
>>> A number of arches were already using the '.balign', and the patch I
>>> proposed simply added it to remaining ones, now that we added a
>>> WARN_ON() to catch this condition.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>