[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200421201305.66y2u473htzcuhfu@treble>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:13:05 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] objtool: optimize add_dead_ends for split sections
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:07:24AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> @@ -338,15 +351,13 @@ static int add_dead_ends(struct objtool_file *file)
> if (insn)
> insn = list_prev_entry(insn, list);
> else if (rela->addend == rela->sym->sec->len) {
> - found = false;
> - list_for_each_entry_reverse(insn, &file->insn_list, list) {
> - if (insn->sec == rela->sym->sec) {
> - found = true;
> - break;
> - }
> - }
> + struct section_info *sec_info = (struct section_info *)
> + rela->sym->sec->section_info;
> +
> + if (sec_info)
> + insn = sec_info->last_insn;
>
> - if (!found) {
> + if (!insn) {
> WARN("can't find unreachable insn at %s+0x%x",
> rela->sym->sec->name, rela->addend);
> return -1;
Instead of the 'section_info' abstraction I think I'd rather just store
the 'last_insn' pointer directly in the section struct.
Also, the unreachable annotation at the end of a section is really an
edge case. I'm sort of wondering if there's a way to accomplish the
same thing without storing the last_insn.
For example, I wonder if we could use find_insn() for some bytes at the
end of the section. Most of the time I _think_ there will be a two-byte
UD2 instruction there anyway. So maybe we could do something like:
for (offset = rela->sym->sec->len - 1;
offset > rela->sym->sec->len - 10;
offset --) {
insn = find_insn(file, rela->sym->sec, offset);
if (insn)
break;
}
It's kind of ugly, but then we could maybe avoid the need for the
last_insn thing.
BTW, just curious, what's your use case for -ffunction-sections? Is it
for fgkaslr?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists