lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 01/13] objtool: Remove CFI save/restore special case
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Miroslav Benes wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:30:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > There is a special case in the UNWIND_HINT_RESTORE code. When, upon
> > > looking for the UNWIND_HINT_SAVE instruction to restore from, it finds
> > > the instruction hasn't been visited yet, it normally issues a WARN,
> > > except when this HINT_SAVE instruction is the first instruction of
> > > this branch.
> > >
> > > The reason for this special case comes apparent when we remove it;
> > > code like:
> > >
> > > if (cond) {
> > > UNWIND_HINT_SAVE
> > > // do stuff
> > > UNWIND_HINT_RESTORE
> > > }
> > > // more stuff
> > >
> > > will now trigger the warning. This is because UNWIND_HINT_RESTORE is
> > > just a label, and there is nothing keeping it inside the (extended)
> > > basic block covered by @cond. It will attach itself to the first
> > > instruction of 'more stuff' and we'll hit it outside of the @cond,
> > > confusing things.
> > >
> > > I don't much like this special case, it confuses things and will come
> > > apart horribly if/when the annotation needs to support nesting.
> > > Instead extend the affected code to at least form an extended basic
> > > block.
> > >
> > > In particular, of the 2 users of this annotation: ftrace_regs_caller()
> > > and sync_core(), only the latter suffers this problem. Extend it's
> > > code sequence with a NOP to make it an extended basic block.
> > >
> > > This isn't ideal either; stuffing code with NOPs just to make
> > > annotations work is certainly sub-optimal, but given that sync_core()
> > > is stupid expensive in any case, one extra nop isn't going to be a
> > > problem here.
> >
> > So instr_begin() / instr_end() have this exact problem, but worse. Those
> > actually do nest and I've ran into the following situation:
> >
> > if (cond1) {
> > instr_begin();
> > // code1
> > instr_end();
> > }
> > // code
> >
> > if (cond2) {
> > instr_begin();
> > // code2
> > instr_end();
> > }
> > // tail
> >
> > Where objtool then finds the path: !cond1, cond2, which ends up at code2
> > with 0, instead of 1.
> >
> > I've also seen:
> >
> > if (cond) {
> > instr_begin();
> > // code1
> > instr_end();
> > }
> > instr_begin();
> > // code2
> > instr_end();
> >
> > Where instr_end() and instr_begin() merge onto the same instruction of
> > code2 as a 0, and again code2 will issue a false warning.
> >
> > You can also not make objtool lift the end marker to the previous
> > instruction, because then:
> >
> > if (cond1) {
> > instr_begin();
> > if (cond2) {
> > // code2
> > }
> > instr_end();
> > }
> >
> > Suffers the reverse problem, instr_end() becomes part of the @cond2
> > block and cond1 grows a path that misses it entirely.
>
> One could argue that this is really nasty and the correct way should be
>
> if (cond1) {
> if (cond2) {
> instr_begin();
> // code2
> instr_end();
> }
> }
>
> Then it should work if instr_begin() marks the next instruction and
> instr_end() marks the previous one, no? There is a corner case when code2
> is exactly one instruction, so instr counting would have to be updated.

if (cond1) {
instr_begin()
if (cond2) {
// code2
}
// code1
instr_end();
}

is a counter example though, so I take it back.

M

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-26 16:04    [W:0.113 / U:10.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site