linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] objtool/mcount: Add powerpc specific functions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 23 May 2022 11:09:19 +0530
From:   "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     "aik@...abs.ru" <aik@...abs.ru>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] objtool/mcount: Add powerpc specific functions

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 09:38:35AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
>> I gave it a try this morning, I selected HAVE_OBJTOOL and 
>> HAVE_OBJTOOL_MCOUNT from arch/powerpc/Kconfig
>> 
>> 
>> Seems like there are still some x86 arch specific stuff in common common 
>> code and I get the following errors.
> 
> I'm assuming there's a metric ton of x86 specific stuff in there.
> That'll take a while to clean out.
> 
> Mostly Josh's rewrite was centered around splitting out the runtime
> options, but objtool is still always build with all options included,
> even the ones you're not using for your arch, which is what's triggering
> the problems you see here, I suppose...
> 
>> Also, is it normal to get those functions built allthough I have not 
>> selected HAVE_STACK_VALIDATION ?
>> 
>>    CC      /home/chleroy/linux-powerpc/tools/objtool/check.o
>> check.c: In function 'has_valid_stack_frame':
>> check.c:2369:30: error: 'CFI_BP' undeclared (first use in this 
>> function); did you mean 'CFI_SP'?
>>   2369 |         if (cfi->cfa.base == CFI_BP &&
>>        |                              ^~~~~~
>>        |                              CFI_SP
>> check.c:2369:30: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once 
>> for each function it appears in
>> check.c:2371:44: error: 'CFI_RA' undeclared (first use in this 
>> function); did you mean 'CFI_R3'?
>>   2371 |             check_reg_frame_pos(&cfi->regs[CFI_RA], 
>> -cfi->cfa.offset + 8))
>>        |                                            ^~~~~~
>>        |                                            CFI_R3
>> check.c: In function 'update_cfi_state':
>> check.c:2499:70: error: 'CFI_BP' undeclared (first use in this 
>> function); did you mean 'CFI_SP'?
>>   2499 |                         if (op->src.reg == CFI_SP && 
>> op->dest.reg == CFI_BP &&
>>        | 
>>        ^~~~~~
>>        | 
>>        CFI_SP
>> make[3]: *** [/home/chleroy/linux-powerpc/tools/build/Makefile.build:97: 
>> /home/chleroy/linux-powerpc/tools/objtool/check.o] Error 1
>> make[2]: *** [Makefile:54: 
>> /home/chleroy/linux-powerpc/tools/objtool/objtool-in.o] Error 2
>> make[1]: *** [Makefile:69: objtool] Error 2
>> make: *** [Makefile:1337: tools/objtool] Error 2
>> 
>> 
>> What would be the best approach to fix that ?
> 
> Define CFI_BP to your frame register (r2, afaict) I suppose. If you're
> only using OBJTOOL_MCOUNT this code will never run, so all you have to
> ensure is that it compiles, not that it makes sense (-:

Sathvika has been looking into this.

> 
> The very long and complicated way would be to propagate the various
> CONFIG_HAVE_* build time things to the objtool build and librally
> sprinkle a lot of #ifdef around.

I think there were just a couple of unrelated checks/warnings that were 
causing problems on powerpc. So, we likely won't need too many #ifdefs, 
at least for mcount purposes.

Sathvika,
Can you post what you have?


- Naveen