linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 2 (objtool)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:46:14 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 2 (objtool)

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 02:45:28PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 10:23:21AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 7/3/19 9:44 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 11:47:02AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > >> On 7/2/19 2:51 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >>> Hi all,
> > >>>
> > >>> Changes since 20190701:
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> on x86_64:
> > >>
> > >> kernel/bpf/core.o: warning: objtool: ___bpf_prog_run()+0x22: can't find switch jump table
> > > 
> > > I don't see it on current linux-next/master.  Can you share the config
> > > and .o?
> > > 
> > 
> > This warning happened in 6 of 10 builds for 20190702.
> > 
> > Today (20190703) I don't see it at all, but I see this instead:
> > kernel/bpf/core.o: warning: objtool: ___bpf_prog_run()+0xa3: sibling call from callable instruction with modified stack frame
> > 
> > Kernel (rand)config file and .o file for 20190702 are attached.
> 
> Thanks, I'm able to recreate the sibling call warning with a randconfig
> on today's linux-next.
> 
> GCC is doing some funky stuff.  With my randconfig, ___bpf_prog_run()
> has 166 indirect calls to its jump table.  Seems (a bit!) excessive.

s/calls/jumps/ obviously

> 
> I'll need to look into it.
> 
> -- 
> Josh

-- 
Josh