From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09ED12066D9 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740225797; cv=none; b=BUop6M0EYelz1JZptzJCk6S/UIW5+YGyUV0lXfcU8UAAa5YOSlp4CzZSa4ze2WxKGAKa6UnH9JW0WL3W9rHUodsQ4EORaNieD5OBGRIW17j+i1e3QYbG1fvZI4uiNi6x1sWk1DIrMadlE4kJw3+TQZaXsrjfEu+DxFhKv9VIK2A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740225797; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JKuPKfP/+zE/C/l49mh6YZeCh+XMEiC/388ZHcb86Og=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EmCSKXXhLzoMHSS4ikfJC0B7NTqHgXy+yqxmmEYZJFHjSoPKg2eyeNgPhEvA4civfOEniPEYa+yaq8lZkEEchIqSthPQv74fUF3PQ4kO4VRjFLg6+adUfqkB7UY4u8K3lGn015nj/XchdvTCittnD3wXRWOuwSHgCum19iQbqos= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=TgS0F/pr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="TgS0F/pr" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14366C4CED1; Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1740225796; bh=JKuPKfP/+zE/C/l49mh6YZeCh+XMEiC/388ZHcb86Og=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=TgS0F/prLCu/5Oq38bHZA14MZZsaJ/DPrALJr/HZ6fVxD9isTWho+/sxA56rIvzjg aO4LFom9m5yOuTU8ecpHGxWFFohoU0c+6/ae76eO0G2m5fm1JTvPVPuU2s1KnZBV0a NgN/o+UwG5zKIjFQ4GAh6vQbOOz9/zmXPx942l2Iy7F6k66NDnpBDcog+47k1cjaeS SslV39c/juXRXZe0rdy56KH7CrsPKpoLu3ijNIHBfTNE4zi02cE//QokSRW/jrSx+2 svFz3UBQGtsLy8NUWXS081Y6q52mxUvd5pxOUvZRnxZhx42IBJ7sKBThTVIha34X6V ufjdG5PrmUAtQ== Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:03:07 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Linus Torvalds , Ard Biesheuvel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Tom Lendacky , Nathan Chancellor Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86/relocs: Improve diagnostic for rejected absolute references Message-ID: References: <20250127114334.1045857-4-ardb+git@google.com> <20250127114334.1045857-5-ardb+git@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: * Ingo Molnar wrote: > So after another 2 weeks there's been no new upstream regressions I'm > aware of, so - knock on wood - it seems we can leave the die() in > place? > > But could we perhaps make it more debuggable, should it trigger - > such as not removing the relevant object file and improving the > message? I.e. make the build failure experience Linus had somewhat > more palatable... For example, the new message is far better, even when combined with a die() build failure: - die("Absolute reference to symbol '%s' not permitted in .head.text\n", - symname); - break; + fprintf(stderr, + "Absolute reference to symbol '%s+0x%lx' detected in .head.text (0x%lx).\n" + "This kernel might not boot.\n", + symname, rel->r_addend, offset); as it points out that the underlying bug might result in an unbootable kernel image. So the user at least knows what the pain is about ... Thanks, Ingo