Re: [PATCH v6 13/29] arm64/build: Assert for unwanted sections
From: Nick Desaulniers <hidden>
Date: 2020-10-27 20:12:28
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-efi, linux-renesas-soc, lkml
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 12:25 PM Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi Nick, CC Josh On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 6:49 PM Nick Desaulniers [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:44 AM Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 6:39 PM Ard Biesheuvel [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 17:01, Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 2:29 PM Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 1:29 PM Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
I.e. including the ".eh_frame" warning. I have tried bisecting that warning (i.e. with be2881824ae9eb92 reverted), but that leads me to commit b3e5d80d0c48c0cc ("arm64/build: Warn on orphan section placement"), which is another red herring.kernel/bpf/core.o is the only file containing an eh_frame section, causing the warning.When I see .eh_frame, I think -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables is missing from someone's KBUILD_CFLAGS. But I don't see anything curious in kernel/bpf/Makefile, unless cc-disable-warning is somehow broken.I tracked it down to kernel/bpf/core.c:___bpf_prog_run() being tagged with __no_fgcse aka __attribute__((optimize("-fno-gcse"))). Even if the function is trivially empty ("return 0;"), a ".eh_frame" section is generated. Removing the __no_fgcse tag fixes that.
That's weird. I feel pretty strongly that unless we're working around a well understood compiler bug with a comment that links to a submitted bug report, turning off rando compiler optimizations is a terrible hack for which one must proceed straight to jail; do not pass go; do not collect $200. But maybe I'd feel differently for this case given the context of the change that added it. (Ard mentions retpolines+orc+objtool; can someone share the relevant SHA if you have it handy so I don't have to go digging?) (I feel the same about there being an empty asm(); statement in the definition of asm_volatile_goto for compiler-gcc.h). Might be time to "fix the compiler." (It sounds like Arvind is both in agreement with my sentiment, and has the root cause). -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel