linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memblock: fix section mismatch warning

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]
Message-ID: <20210225150757.GK1447004@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:07:57 +0200
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Faiyaz Mohammed <faiyazm@...eaurora.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Aslan Bakirov <aslan@...com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memblock: fix section mismatch warning

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 03:06:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 2:47 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 25.02.21 14:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > >
> > > The inlining logic in clang-13 is rewritten to often not inline
> > > some functions that were inlined by all earlier compilers.
> > >
> > > In case of the memblock interfaces, this exposed a harmless bug
> > > of a missing __init annotation:
> > >
> > > WARNING: modpost: vmlinux.o(.text+0x507c0a): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_bottom_up() to the variable .meminit.data:memblock
> > > The function memblock_bottom_up() references
> > > the variable __meminitdata memblock.
> > > This is often because memblock_bottom_up lacks a __meminitdata
> > > annotation or the annotation of memblock is wrong.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, these annotations were present originally, but got removed
> > > with the explanation that the __init annotation prevents the function
> > > from getting inlined. I checked this again and found that while this
> > > is the case with clang, gcc (version 7 through 10, did not test others)
> > > does inline the functions regardless.
> >
> > Did I understand correctly, that with this change it will not get
> > inlined with any version of clang? Maybe __always_inline is more
> > appropriate then.
> >
> > (I don't see why to not inline that function, but I am obviously not a
> > compiler person :) )
> 
> Looking at the assembler output in the arm64 build that triggered the
> warning, I see this code:

"push %rbp" seems more x86 for me, but that's not really important :)

I wonder what happens with other memblock inline APIs, particularly with
alloc wrappers. Do they still get inlined?

> 0000000000000a40 <memblock_bottom_up>:
>  a40:   55                      push   %rbp
>  a41:   48 89 e5                mov    %rsp,%rbp
>  a44:   41 56                   push   %r14
>  a46:   53                      push   %rbx
>  a47:   e8 00 00 00 00          call   a4c <memblock_bottom_up+0xc>
>                         a48: R_X86_64_PLT32     __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc-0x4
>  a4c:   48 c7 c7 00 00 00 00    mov    $0x0,%rdi
>                         a4f: R_X86_64_32S       memblock
>  a53:   e8 00 00 00 00          call   a58 <memblock_bottom_up+0x18>
>                         a54: R_X86_64_PLT32     __asan_load1_noabort-0x4
>  a58:   44 0f b6 35 00 00 00    movzbl 0x0(%rip),%r14d        # a60
> <memblock_bottom_up+0x20>
>  a5f:   00
>                         a5c: R_X86_64_PC32      memblock-0x4
>  a60:   bf 02 00 00 00          mov    $0x2,%edi
>  a65:   44 89 f6                mov    %r14d,%esi
>  a68:   e8 00 00 00 00          call   a6d <memblock_bottom_up+0x2d>
>                         a69: R_X86_64_PLT32
> __sanitizer_cov_trace_const_cmp1-0x4
>  a6d:   41 83 fe 01             cmp    $0x1,%r14d
>  a71:   77 20                   ja     a93 <memblock_bottom_up+0x53>
>  a73:   e8 00 00 00 00          call   a78 <memblock_bottom_up+0x38>
>                         a74: R_X86_64_PLT32     __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc-0x4
>  a78:   44 89 f3                mov    %r14d,%ebx
>  a7b:   80 e3 01                and    $0x1,%bl
>  a7e:   41 83 e6 01             and    $0x1,%r14d
>  a82:   31 ff                   xor    %edi,%edi
>  a84:   44 89 f6                mov    %r14d,%esi
>  a87:   e8 00 00 00 00          call   a8c <memblock_bottom_up+0x4c>
>                         a88: R_X86_64_PLT32
> __sanitizer_cov_trace_const_cmp1-0x4
>  a8c:   89 d8                   mov    %ebx,%eax
>  a8e:   5b                      pop    %rbx
>  a8f:   41 5e                   pop    %r14
>  a91:   5d                      pop    %rbp
>  a92:   c3                      ret
>  a93:   e8 00 00 00 00          call   a98 <memblock_bottom_up+0x58>
>                         a94: R_X86_64_PLT32     __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc-0x4
>  a98:   48 c7 c7 00 00 00 00    mov    $0x0,%rdi
>                         a9b: R_X86_64_32S       .data+0x3c0
>  a9f:   4c 89 f6                mov    %r14,%rsi
>  aa2:   e8 00 00 00 00          call   aa7 <memblock_bottom_up+0x67>
>                         aa3: R_X86_64_PLT32
> __ubsan_handle_load_invalid_value-0x4
>  aa7:   eb cf                   jmp    a78 <memblock_bottom_up+0x38>
>  aa9:   66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00    cs nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>  ab0:   00 00 00
>  ab3:   66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00    cs nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>  aba:   00 00 00
>  abd:   0f 1f 00                nopl   (%rax)
> 
> This means that the sanitiers added a lot of extra checking around what
> would have been a trivial global variable access otherwise. In this case,
> not inlining would be a reasonable decision.
> 
>       Arnd

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.