[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170322074616.GA10809@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:46:16 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] x86: assembly, FUNC_START for fn, DATA_START
for data
* Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> wrote:
> On 03/22/2017, 08:25 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >>> -ENTRY(saved_rbp) .quad 0
> >>> -ENTRY(saved_rsi) .quad 0
> >>> -ENTRY(saved_rdi) .quad 0
> >>> -ENTRY(saved_rbx) .quad 0
> >>> +SYM_DATA_START(saved_rbp) .quad 0
> >>> +SYM_DATA_START(saved_rsi) .quad 0
> >>> +SYM_DATA_START(saved_rdi) .quad 0
> >>> +SYM_DATA_START(saved_rbx) .quad 0
> >>
> >> Does it make sense to call it SYM_DATA_*START* when there's no
> >> corresponding end?
> >
> > That looks like a bug - I think we should strive for them to always be in pairs.
> >
> > Jiri, Josh, could objtool help here perhaps, to detect 'non-terminated'
> > SYM_*_START() uses? This could be done by emitting debug data into a special
> > section and then analyzing that section for unpaired entries. The section can be
> > discarded in the final link, it won't show up in the kernel image.
>
> It should be easier than that. No introduction of other info needed --
> every global symbol without a ".type" or ".size" (i.e. SYM_*_END) should
> be a bug now.
I'm all for that!
Can we detect double ends as well - i.e. do a build check of the full syntax of
these symbol definition primitives?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists