[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230921192253.GA39480@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 21:22:53 +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 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:
#define OBJTOOL_ANNOTATE(type) \
"999:\n\t" \
".pushsection .discard.objtool_annotate\n\t" \
".byte 999b\n\t" \
".byte " __stringify(type) "\n\t" \
".popsection\n\t"
And since we only read the relocation and don't care for the actual
result that would actually work just fine.
Anyway, thanks for bearing with me.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists