From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
kbuild-all@lists.01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mbenes@suse.cz, x86@kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915.prelink.o: warning: objtool: __intel_wait_for_register_fw.cold()+0xce: relocation to !ENDBR: vlv_allow_gt_wake.cold+0x0
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 02:46:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87czhv11k1.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220406000500.5hlaqy5zrdqsg5mg@treble>
On Tue, Apr 05 2022 at 17:05, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> But objtool is complaining about a real problem (albeit with a cryptic
> warning). I don't think we want to paper over that. See patch.
>
> Also, are in-tree users of trace_printk() even allowed??
See the comment in the header file you are patching:
* This is intended as a debugging tool for the developer only.
* Please refrain from leaving trace_printks scattered around in
* your code. (Extra memory is used for special buffers that are
* allocated when trace_printk() is used.)
....
> From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] tracing: Fix _THIS_IP_ usage in trace_printk()
>
> do_trace_printk() uses the _THIS_IP_ macro to save the current
> instruction pointer as an argument to a called function. However,
> because _THIS_IP_ relies on an empty label hack to get the IP, the
> compiler is actually free to place the label anywhere in the function,
> including at the very end -- which, since the label doesn't actually
> have any code, is technically at the beginning of whatever function
> happens to come next.
>
> For example:
>
> 1d89: 48 c7 c7 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rdi
> 1d8c: R_X86_64_32S .text.unlikely+0x1d3a
> 1d90: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 1d95 <__intel_wait_for_register_fw.cold+0xd4>
> 1d91: R_X86_64_PLT32 __trace_bprintk-0x4
> 1d95: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 1d9a <__intel_wait_for_register_fw.cold+0xd9>
> 1d96: R_X86_64_PLT32 __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc-0x4
> 1d9a: bf 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%edi
> 1d9f: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 1da4 <__intel_wait_for_register_fw.cold+0xe3>
> 1da0: R_X86_64_PLT32 ftrace_dump-0x4
> 1da4: 31 f6 xor %esi,%esi
> 1da6: bf 09 00 00 00 mov $0x9,%edi
> 1dab: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 1db0 <__intel_wait_for_register_fw.cold+0xef>
> 1dac: R_X86_64_PLT32 add_taint-0x4
> 1db0: 90 nop
> 1db1: 0f 0b ud2
>
> 0000000000001db3 <vlv_allow_gt_wake.cold>:
>
> In this case _THIS_IP_ causes the instruction at 0x1d89 to reference the
> next function. This results in a semi-cryptic objtool warning:
>
> warning: objtool: __intel_wait_for_register_fw.cold()+0xce: relocation to !ENDBR: vlv_allow_gt_wake.cold+0x
>
> While _THIS_IP_ is inherently imprecise, we can at least coddle the
> compiler into putting the label *before* the call by using _THIS_IP_
> immediately before the call instead of as an argument to the call.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/kernel.h | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
> index 08ba5995aa8b..c399b29840eb 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> @@ -390,13 +390,15 @@ do { \
> static const char *trace_printk_fmt __used \
> __section("__trace_printk_fmt") = \
> __builtin_constant_p(fmt) ? fmt : NULL; \
> + unsigned long __ip; \
> \
> __trace_printk_check_format(fmt, ##args); \
> \
> + __ip = _THIS_IP_; \
> if (__builtin_constant_p(fmt)) \
> - __trace_bprintk(_THIS_IP_, trace_printk_fmt, ##args); \
> + __trace_bprintk(__ip, trace_printk_fmt, ##args); \
> else \
> - __trace_printk(_THIS_IP_, fmt, ##args); \
> + __trace_printk(__ip, fmt, ##args); \
> } while (0)
>
> extern __printf(2, 3)
This covers the trace_printk() case which uses do_trace_printk(), but
the same problem exists in trace_puts() and ftrace_vprintk()...., no?
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-06 5:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-04 4:33 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915.prelink.o: warning: objtool: __intel_wait_for_register_fw.cold()+0xce: relocation to !ENDBR: vlv_allow_gt_wake.cold+0x0 kernel test robot
2022-04-05 14:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-06 0:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-04-06 0:46 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2022-04-06 1:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-04-06 18:44 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2022-04-06 5:32 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-04-06 7:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-06 14:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-04-06 7:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-06 16:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-04-07 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-06 14:14 ` Steven Rostedt
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=87czhv11k1.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=kbuild-all@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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