[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250217185106.GA7304@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:51:06 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the crc tree
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:16:11AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 05:05:55PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the crc tree, today's linux-next build (x86_84 allmodconfig)
> > produced these warnings:
> >
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: crc32_x86_init+0x1c0: relocation to !ENDBR: crc32_lsb_vpclmul_avx10_256+0x0
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: crc64_x86_init+0x183: relocation to !ENDBR: crc64_msb_vpclmul_avx10_256+0x0
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: crc_t10dif_x86_init+0x183: relocation to !ENDBR: crc16_msb_vpclmul_avx10_256+0x0
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: __SCK__crc32_lsb_pclmul+0x0: data relocation to !ENDBR: crc32_lsb_pclmul_sse+0x0
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: __SCK__crc64_lsb_pclmul+0x0: data relocation to !ENDBR: crc64_lsb_pclmul_sse+0x0
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: __SCK__crc64_msb_pclmul+0x0: data relocation to !ENDBR: crc64_msb_pclmul_sse+0x0
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: __SCK__crc16_msb_pclmul+0x0: data relocation to !ENDBR: crc16_msb_pclmul_sse+0x0
> >
> > I have no idea what has caused these. Just sending to the crc tree
> > owner (due to the symbol names) and Peter (since he made the only new
> > change to objtool - though it doesn't look vrey related).
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
>
> Thanks. I'm wondering if this means the crc assembly functions need to use
> SYM_TYPED_FUNC_START instead of SYM_FUNC_START. But they are only called via
> static_calls, not indirect calls, so previously this didn't seem to be necessary
> even with CFI enabled. I'll look into it. Peter, any thoughts on this?
I removed the ENDBR from SYM_FUNC_START() because it is insufficient vs
CFI, so no point in having it there.
If these functions are not indirectly called and only ever used through
static_call() (as you say) you can adorn them with:
ANNOTATE_NOENDBR
to tell objtool to STFU :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists