From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 16 (objtool: warnings)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:23:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YNCgxwLBiK9wclYJ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YNCVaPtEWlsvQfjw@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 03:34:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:50:49AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 4/16/21 4:36 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Changes since 20210415:
> >
> >
> > on x86_64, objtool is not liking retpoline.o:
> >
> > $ gcc --version
> > gcc (SUSE Linux) 7.5.0
> >
> >
> > Is there already a patch for these?
> >
> >
> > ===== build-r8840.out =====
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rax()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rbx()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rcx()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rdx()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rsi()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rdi()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_rbp()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r8()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r9()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r10()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r11()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r12()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r13()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r14()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > arch/x86/lib/retpoline.o: warning: objtool: __x86_indirect_alt_call_r15()+0x0: call without frame pointer save/setup
>
> Damn, sorry I missed this. I know what the problem is, but I've yet to
> find a solution that's not terrible... hold on.
---
Subject: objtool/x86: Ignore __x86_indirect_alt_* symbols
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Mon Jun 21 16:13:55 CEST 2021
Because the __x86_indirect_alt* symbols are just that, objtool will
try and validate them as regular symbols, instead of the alternative
replacements that they are.
This goes sideways for FRAME_POINTER=y builds; which generate a fair
amount of warnings.
Fixes: 9bc0bb50727c ("objtool/x86: Rewrite retpoline thunk calls")
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
--- a/arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S
@@ -58,12 +58,16 @@ SYM_FUNC_START_NOALIGN(__x86_indirect_al
2: .skip 5-(2b-1b), 0x90
SYM_FUNC_END(__x86_indirect_alt_call_\reg)
+STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD(__x86_indirect_alt_call_\reg)
+
SYM_FUNC_START_NOALIGN(__x86_indirect_alt_jmp_\reg)
ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE
1: jmp *%\reg
2: .skip 5-(2b-1b), 0x90
SYM_FUNC_END(__x86_indirect_alt_jmp_\reg)
+STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD(__x86_indirect_alt_jmp_\reg)
+
.endm
/*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-21 14:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-16 11:36 linux-next: Tree for Apr 16 Stephen Rothwell
2021-04-16 17:50 ` linux-next: Tree for Apr 16 (objtool: warnings) Randy Dunlap
2021-06-21 13:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-21 14:23 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-06-21 23:30 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-04-16 18:53 ` linux-next: Tree for Apr 16 (IMA appraise causing build error) Randy Dunlap
2021-04-16 20:25 ` Nayna
2021-04-16 20:32 ` Randy Dunlap
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YNCgxwLBiK9wclYJ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox