[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230921193101.GA1254@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 21:31:01 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation, objtool: Use absolute relocations for
annotations
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 09:22:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 10:36:27AM -0700, Fangrui Song wrote:
>
> > Well, only if the clever assembler doesn't support 32-bit absolute
> > relocation for a 64-bit architecture.
> > I don't know such an architecture. In addition, as long as the
> > architecture intends to support DWARF32, it has to support 32-bit
> > absolute relocations for a 64-bit architecture.
>
> Ooh... my bad. For some reason I thought that absolute meant native word
> size. But you already mentioned R_X86_64_32 (and I failed to check) and
> that is indeed an absolute (S+A) relocation of 32bit (dword) size.
>
> And apparently we also have R_X64_64_16 and R_X86_64_8, which would even
> allow something like:
Hurm, just checked PPC/PPC64 and ARM64 and they only do 16bit (and up)
absolute relocations, not the single byte form.
So if I want to keep this portable, I suppose I shouldn't go smaller.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists