linux-kernel - Re: objtool warning for next-20221118

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: <20230128190634.GA1043262@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Sat, 28 Jan 2023 11:06:34 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: objtool warning for next-20221118

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 03:06:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:32:14PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:12:42AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:19:41AM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 09:49:51AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > > Perhaps the best way would be to stick a REACHABLE annotation in
> > > > > > > > arch_cpu_idle_dead() or something?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > When I apply this on -next, I still get the objtool complaint.
> > > > > > > Is there something else I should also be doing?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Silly GCC is folding the inline asm.  This works (but still doesn't seem
> > > > > > like the right approach):
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > > > > > index 26e8f57c75ad..128e7d78fedf 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > > > > > @@ -702,7 +702,7 @@ static void (*x86_idle)(void);
> > > > > >  #ifndef CONFIG_SMP
> > > > > >  static inline void play_dead(void)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > -	BUG();
> > > > > > +	_BUG_FLAGS(ASM_UD2, 0, ASM_REACHABLE);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >  #endif
> > > > > 
> > > > > I tried this, and still get:
> > > > > 
> > > > > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: do_idle+0x156: unreachable instruction
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe my gcc is haunted?
> > > > 
> > > > Weird, it worked for me.  I have
> > > > 
> > > >   gcc version 12.2.1 20220819 (Red Hat 12.2.1-2) (GCC)
> > > 
> > > Me, I have these, so quite a bit older:
> > > 
> > > gcc version 8.5.0 20210514 (Red Hat 8.5.0-15) (GCC)
> > > gcc version 9.4.0 (Ubuntu 9.4.0-1ubuntu1~20.04.1)
> > > 
> > > > and I can't really fathom why that wouldn't work.  Maybe it's a
> > > > different issue?  The "unreachable instruction" warning is limited to
> > > > one, so when a first warning gets fixed, a second warning might suddenly
> > > > become visible.
> > > > 
> > > > Can you attach arch/x86/kernel/process.o?
> > > 
> > > Attached!
> > 
> > Hm, for whatever reason, that .o file is indeed missing the reachable
> > annotation.  <scratches head>
> 
> There are at least three definitions.  Might I be getting the wrong one?
> 
> I have CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE=y and CONFIG_GENERIC_BUG=y, so I would
> expect to be using the first one:
> 
> #define _BUG_FLAGS(ins, flags, extra)					\
> do {									\
> 	asm_inline volatile("1:\t" ins "\n"				\
> 		     ".pushsection __bug_table,\"aw\"\n"		\
> 		     "2:\t" __BUG_REL(1b) "\t# bug_entry::bug_addr\n"	\
> 		     "\t"  __BUG_REL(%c0) "\t# bug_entry::file\n"	\
> 		     "\t.word %c1"        "\t# bug_entry::line\n"	\
> 		     "\t.word %c2"        "\t# bug_entry::flags\n"	\
> 		     "\t.org 2b+%c3\n"					\
> 		     ".popsection\n"					\
> 		     extra						\
> 		     : : "i" (__FILE__), "i" (__LINE__),		\
> 			 "i" (flags),					\
> 			 "i" (sizeof(struct bug_entry)));		\
> } while (0)
> 
> > I confirmed the patch also fixes the warning with:
> > 
> >   gcc version 8.5.0 20210514 (Red Hat 8.5.0-10) (GCC)
> > 
> > No idea why it's not working for you... but maybe it doesn't matter as
> > I'm still thinking we should go with a different approach.
> 
> OK, then I will await your update.

Sorry to be a nag, but I am still seeing this.  Not a huge problem because
I now filter it out so that it does not get in the way of other bugs,
but I figured that I should follow up.

							Thanx, Paul