[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <164914737798.389.68339904332129316.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 08:29:37 -0000
From: "tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra" <tip-bot2@...utronix.de>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [tip: x86/urgent] objtool: Fix IBT tail-call detection
The following commit has been merged into the x86/urgent branch of tip:
Commit-ID: d139bca4b824ffb9731763c31b271a24b595948a
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/d139bca4b824ffb9731763c31b271a24b595948a
Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
AuthorDate: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 12:33:31 +01:00
Committer: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CommitterDate: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:24:40 +02:00
objtool: Fix IBT tail-call detection
Objtool reports:
arch/x86/crypto/poly1305-x86_64.o: warning: objtool: poly1305_blocks_avx() falls through to next function poly1305_blocks_x86_64()
arch/x86/crypto/poly1305-x86_64.o: warning: objtool: poly1305_emit_avx() falls through to next function poly1305_emit_x86_64()
arch/x86/crypto/poly1305-x86_64.o: warning: objtool: poly1305_blocks_avx2() falls through to next function poly1305_blocks_x86_64()
Which reads like:
0000000000000040 <poly1305_blocks_x86_64>:
40: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64
...
0000000000000400 <poly1305_blocks_avx>:
400: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64
404: 44 8b 47 14 mov 0x14(%rdi),%r8d
408: 48 81 fa 80 00 00 00 cmp $0x80,%rdx
40f: 73 09 jae 41a <poly1305_blocks_avx+0x1a>
411: 45 85 c0 test %r8d,%r8d
414: 0f 84 2a fc ff ff je 44 <poly1305_blocks_x86_64+0x4>
...
These are simple conditional tail-calls and *should* be recognised as
such by objtool, however due to a mistake in commit 08f87a93c8ec
("objtool: Validate IBT assumptions") this is failing.
Specifically, the jump_dest is +4, this means the instruction pointed
at will not be ENDBR and as such it will fail the second clause of
is_first_func_insn() that was supposed to capture this exact case.
Instead, have is_first_func_insn() look at the previous instruction.
Fixes: 08f87a93c8ec ("objtool: Validate IBT assumptions")
Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220322115125.811582125@infradead.org
---
tools/objtool/check.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c
index 6de5085..b848e1d 100644
--- a/tools/objtool/check.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
@@ -1239,11 +1239,20 @@ static bool same_function(struct instruction *insn1, struct instruction *insn2)
return insn1->func->pfunc == insn2->func->pfunc;
}
-static bool is_first_func_insn(struct instruction *insn)
+static bool is_first_func_insn(struct objtool_file *file, struct instruction *insn)
{
- return insn->offset == insn->func->offset ||
- (insn->type == INSN_ENDBR &&
- insn->offset == insn->func->offset + insn->len);
+ if (insn->offset == insn->func->offset)
+ return true;
+
+ if (ibt) {
+ struct instruction *prev = prev_insn_same_sym(file, insn);
+
+ if (prev && prev->type == INSN_ENDBR &&
+ insn->offset == insn->func->offset + prev->len)
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ return false;
}
/*
@@ -1327,7 +1336,7 @@ static int add_jump_destinations(struct objtool_file *file)
insn->jump_dest->func->pfunc = insn->func;
} else if (!same_function(insn, insn->jump_dest) &&
- is_first_func_insn(insn->jump_dest)) {
+ is_first_func_insn(file, insn->jump_dest)) {
/* internal sibling call (without reloc) */
add_call_dest(file, insn, insn->jump_dest->func, true);
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists