From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: xur@google.com
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com>,
Han Shen <shenhan@google.com>,
Krzysztof Pszeniczny <kpszeniczny@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] objtool: dead_end function change for split functions
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 22:19:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251103211910.GK3245006@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251103185154.1933872-2-xur@google.com>
On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 06:51:54PM +0000, xur@google.com wrote:
> From: Rong Xu <xur@google.com>
>
> Function Splitting can potentially move all return instructions
> into the cold (infrequently executed) section of the function.
> If this happens, the original function might be incorrectly
> flagged as a dead-end function.
>
> The consequence is an incomplete ORC table, which leads to an unwind
> error, and subsequently, a livepatch failure.
>
> This patch adds the support of the dead_end_function check for
> split function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rong Xu <xur@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Han Shen <shenhan@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Pszeniczny <kpszeniczny@google.com>
> ---
> tools/objtool/check.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c
> index c2ee3c3a84a62..b752cf508d09a 100644
> --- a/tools/objtool/check.c
> +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
> @@ -237,6 +237,73 @@ static bool is_rust_noreturn(const struct symbol *func)
> str_ends_with(func->name, "_fail"));
> }
>
> +static bool __dead_end_function(struct objtool_file *, struct symbol *, int);
> +
> +/*
> + * Check if the target of a sibling_call instruction is a dead_end function.
> + * Note insn must be a sibling call.
> + */
> +static inline bool __dead_end_sibling_call(struct objtool_file *file,
> + struct instruction *insn, int recursion) {
Please: cino=(0:0
also for functions { on a new line.
> + struct instruction *dest = insn->jump_dest;
> +
> + if (!dest)
> + /* sibling call to another file */
> + return false;
I know this is just code movement, but this wants {} per coding style.
> +
> + /* local sibling call */
> + if (recursion == 5) {
> + /*
> + * Infinite recursion: two functions have
> + * sibling calls to each other. This is a very
> + * rare case. It means they aren't dead ends.
> + */
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return __dead_end_function(file, insn_func(dest), recursion+1);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Handling split functions. Mimic the workflow in __dead_end_function.
> + */
> +static bool __dead_end_split_func(struct objtool_file *file,
> + struct symbol *func, int recursion)
cino=(0:0
> +{
> + char section_name[256];
> + struct section *sec;
> + struct instruction *insn;
> +
> + /*
> + * Use a fixed-size buffer (max 256) to avoid malloc. If the section
> + * length exceeds this limit, we return a conservative value. This is
> + * a safe fallback and does not compromise functional correctness.
> + */
> + if (snprintf(section_name, sizeof(section_name), ".text.split.%s",
> + func->name) >= sizeof(section_name)) {
That is a terribly confusing line-break to read. Might've been better to
split after the greate-or-equal sign.
> + fprintf(stderr, "Error: Function name '%s' too long.\n", func->name);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + sec = find_section_by_name(file->elf, section_name);
> + if (!sec)
> + return false;
> +
> + sec_for_each_insn(file, sec, insn) {
> + if (insn->type == INSN_RETURN)
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + sec_for_each_insn(file, sec, insn) {
> + if (is_sibling_call(insn)) {
> + if (!__dead_end_sibling_call(file, insn, recursion))
> + return false;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * This checks to see if the given function is a "noreturn" function.
> *
> @@ -298,33 +365,16 @@ static bool __dead_end_function(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func,
> */
> func_for_each_insn(file, func, insn) {
> if (is_sibling_call(insn)) {
> - struct instruction *dest = insn->jump_dest;
> -
> - if (!dest)
> - /* sibling call to another file */
> - return false;
> -
> - /* local sibling call */
> - if (recursion == 5) {
> - /*
> - * Infinite recursion: two functions have
> - * sibling calls to each other. This is a very
> - * rare case. It means they aren't dead ends.
> - */
> - return false;
> - }
> -
> /*
> * A function can have multiple sibling calls. All of
> * them need to be dead ends for the function to be a
> * dead end too.
> */
> - if (!__dead_end_function(file, insn_func(dest), recursion+1))
> + if (!__dead_end_sibling_call(file, insn, recursion))
> return false;
> }
> }
> -
> - return true;
> + return __dead_end_split_func(file, func, recursion);
> }
Aside from some coding style nits, this seems like it will do.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-03 21:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-03 18:51 [PATCH 1/2] objtool: fix the check for dead_end function with multiple sibliing calls xur
2025-11-03 18:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] objtool: dead_end function change for split functions xur
2025-11-03 21:19 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2025-11-03 21:40 ` Rong Xu
2025-11-03 21:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] objtool: fix the check for dead_end function with multiple sibliing calls Peter Zijlstra
2025-11-03 21:11 ` Rong Xu
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=20251103211910.GK3245006@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=kpszeniczny@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shenhan@google.com \
--cc=tmsriram@google.com \
--cc=xur@google.com \
/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