[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200325144211.irnwnly37fyhapvx@treble>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 09:42:11 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org, mbenes@...e.cz, brgerst@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 26/26] objtool: Add STT_NOTYPE noinstr validation
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:34:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 05:16:16PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 04:31:39PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > + if (state.noinstr) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * In vmlinux mode we will not run validate_unwind_hints() by
> > > + * default which means we'll not otherwise visit STT_NOTYPE
> > > + * symbols.
> > > + *
> > > + * In case of --duplicate mode, insn->visited will avoid actual
> > > + * duplicate work being done.
> > > + */
> > > + list_for_each_entry(func, &sec->symbol_list, list) {
> > > + if (func->type != STT_NOTYPE)
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + warnings += validate_symbol(file, sec, func, &state);
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > I guess this is ok, but is there a valid reason why we don't just call
> > validate_unwind_hints()?
> >
> > It's also slightly concerning that validate_reachable_instructions()
> > isn't called, I'm not 100% convinced all the code will get checked.
>
> This will only end up running on .noinstr.text, while
> validate_unwind_hints() will run on *everything*. That is, we're
> purposely not checking everything.
>
> It very much relies on the !vmlinux mode to do the unreachable things.
Sure, but couldn't validate_unwind_hints() and
validate_reachable_instructions() be changed to *only* run on
.noinstr.text, for the vmlinux case? That might help converge the
vmlinux and !vmlinux paths.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists