[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180129225252.bi2etgk3eqprcv3x@treble>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:52:53 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/24] objtool: Another static block fail
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 04:25:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I've observed GCC generate:
>
> sym:
> NOP/JMP 1f (static_branch)
> JMP 2f
> 1: /* crud */
> JMP 3f
> 2: /* other crud */
>
> 3: RETQ
>
>
> This means we need to follow unconditional jumps; be conservative and
> only follow if its a unique jump.
>
> (I've not yet figured out which CONFIG option is responsible for this,
> a normal defconfig build does not generate crap like this)
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Any chance we can just add a compiler barrier to the assertion macro and
avoid all this grow_static_blocks() mess? It seems a bit... fragile.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists