linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v4 01/32] objtool: Prepare to merge recordmcount

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:   Tue, 9 Jun 2020 20:31:04 +0100
From:   Julien Thierry <jthierry@...hat.com>
To:     Matt Helsley <mhelsley@...are.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v4 01/32] objtool: Prepare to merge recordmcount



On 6/9/20 4:42 PM, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> On 6/2/20 8:49 PM, Matt Helsley wrote:
>>> Move recordmcount into the objtool directory. We keep this step separate
>>> so changes which turn recordmcount into a subcommand of objtool don't
>>> get obscured.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matt Helsley <mhelsley@...are.com>
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
>>> index 04f5662ae61a..d353a0a65a71 100644
>>> --- a/Makefile
>>> +++ b/Makefile
>>> @@ -844,6 +844,7 @@ ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
>>>    	ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_C_RECORDMCOUNT
>>>    		BUILD_C_RECORDMCOUNT := y
>>>    		export BUILD_C_RECORDMCOUNT
>>> +		objtool_target := tools/objtool FORCE
>>>    	endif
>>>    endif
>>>    endif
>>> @@ -1023,10 +1024,10 @@ endif
>>>    export mod_sign_cmd
>>>    HOST_LIBELF_LIBS = $(shell pkg-config libelf --libs 2>/dev/null || echo -lelf)
>>> +has_libelf := $(call try-run,\
>>> +		echo "int main() {}" | $(HOSTCC) -xc -o /dev/null $(HOST_LIBELF_LIBS) -,1,0)
>>
>> Maybe there could be some build dependency, e.g. CONFIG_OBJTOOL_SUBCMDS that
>> sets the "objtool_target" and "has_libelf" when selected.
>>
>> Then the CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC, RECORD_MCOUNT and STACK_VALIDATION would just
>> had to select that config option.
> 
> That might save a good amount of control flow in the Makefiles.
> 
> We could take it one step further and have specific CONFIG_OBJTOOL_<subcmd>
> which might help us remove the per-architecture control-flow in
> the multi-arch subcmd support found in tools/objtool/Makefile.
> > What do folks think of that -- too far?
> 

I wasn't completely sure I understood before I saw your reply on the 
next patch. I don't think it's too far, it's cleaner! The current way 
was good enough to deal with only two x86 specific objtool subcommands.

Since you're adding another one and it is likely that more will be added 
in the future, I think it's worth having something a bit more structured 
:) .

>>
>>>    ifdef CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION
>>> -  has_libelf := $(call try-run,\
>>> -		echo "int main() {}" | $(HOSTCC) -xc -o /dev/null $(HOST_LIBELF_LIBS) -,1,0)
>>>      ifeq ($(has_libelf),1)
>>>        objtool_target := tools/objtool FORCE
>>>      else
>>> @@ -1163,13 +1164,15 @@ uapi-asm-generic:
>>>    PHONY += prepare-objtool
>>>    prepare-objtool: $(objtool_target)
>>> -ifeq ($(SKIP_STACK_VALIDATION),1)
>>> -ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC
>>> +ifneq ($(has_libelf),1)
>>> +  ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC
>>>    	@echo "error: Cannot generate ORC metadata for CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC=y, please install libelf-dev, libelf-devel or elfutils-libelf-devel" >&2
>>>    	@false
>>> -else
>>> +  else
>>> +    ifeq ($(SKIP_STACK_VALIDATION),1)
>>>    	@echo "warning: Cannot use CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION=y, please install libelf-dev, libelf-devel or elfutils-libelf-devel" >&2
>>
>>
>> I think this would be more readable without the else branch:
>>
>> 	ifneq ($(has_libelf),1)
>> 		ifdef <some objtool command config>
>> 			<warn about unavailability>
> 
> Note: error not warn
> 

Good point. But since those are errors, you don't need the "else" :)

>> 		endif
>> 		ifdef <another objtool command config>
>> 			<warn ...>
>> 		endif
>> 		<...>
>> 	endif
> 
> I think the next patch, which makes recordmcount a subcmd, makes it a
> little clearer what the pattern is because it adds another ifdef block
> in the way you suggest.
> 
> As for the else around the SKIP_STACK_VALIDATION check -- it is special
> in a couple ways -- at least as best I can tell.
> 
> It's not a CONFIG_* -- it actually breaks the normal pattern with
> CONFIG_* in that..
> 

Yes but $(SKIP_STACK_VALIDATION) == 1 is actually just 
CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION && ($(has_libelf) != 1). And since you are 
already in the ifneq ($(has_libelf),1) branch, checking 
$(SKIP_STACK_VALIDATION) == 1 is the same as CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION 
being defined.

> It's about a judgement call that it's OK to merely warn and skip the
> stack validation rather than produce an error. The other, CONFIG_*
> blocks produce errors.
> 

To me this is minor, we could also imagine another command CONFIG_ 
performing another action than warning or error when libelf is not 
available.

Anyway, this was just a suggestion, I don't want to insist to much on this.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Thierry