On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 19:36, Nathan Chancellor <natechancel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:09:56AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > (+ Arnd)
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 09:06, Nathan Chancellor <natechancel...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 08:37:05AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 02:42, Nathan Chancellor
> > > > <natechancel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This flag is not supported by lld:
> > > > >
> > > > > ld.lld: error: unknown argument: --pic-veneer
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancel...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > Hi Nate,
> > > >
> > > > Does this mean ld.lld is guaranteed to produce position independent
> > > > veneers if you build kernels that are bigger than the typical range of
> > > > a relative branch?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Ard,
> > >
> > > Honestly, I'm not quite sure. I saw your commit that introduced this
> > > flag and I wasn't quite sure what to make of it for lld. What
> > > configuration would I use to verify and what would I check for?
> > >
> >
> > Try building allyesconfig, and check the resulting binary for veneers
> > (which have 'veneer' in the symbol name, at least when ld.bfd emits
> > them). These veneers should not take the [virtual] address of the
> > branch target directly, but take a PC relative offset (as in the
> > example in the commit log of that patch you are referring to)
> >
>
> Alright, compiling with allyesconfig is a little rough at the moment
> (bug reports I will file in due time) but I was able to do it. Here's
> the disassembly specifically for the functions you had in your commit,
> my assembly knowledge is pretty much non-existent unfortunately so I am
> not sure what to make of it (it doesn't look like there is a virtual
> address for pc in that mix?). I am happy to provide any more information
> that is needed.
>
> c03030cc <__enable_mmu>:
> c03030cc: e3c00002 bic r0, r0, #2
> c03030d0: e3c00b02 bic r0, r0, #2048 ; 0x800
> c03030d4: e3c00a01 bic r0, r0, #4096 ; 0x1000
> c03030d8: e3a05051 mov r5, #81 ; 0x51
> c03030dc: ee035f10 mcr 15, 0, r5, cr3, cr0, {0}
> c03030e0: ee024f10 mcr 15, 0, r4, cr2, cr0, {0}
> c03030e4: eafff3c5 b c0300000 <__turn_mmu_on>
> c03030e8: e320f000 nop {0}
> c03030ec: e320f000 nop {0}
> c03030f0: e320f000 nop {0}
> c03030f4: e320f000 nop {0}
> c03030f8: e320f000 nop {0}
> c03030fc: e320f000 nop {0}
>
> c0300000 <__turn_mmu_on>:
> c0300000: e1a00000 nop ; (mov r0, r0)
> c0300004: ee070f95 mcr 15, 0, r0, cr7, cr5, {4}
> c0300008: ee010f10 mcr 15, 0, r0, cr1, cr0, {0}
> c030000c: ee103f10 mrc 15, 0, r3, cr0, cr0, {0}
> c0300010: ee070f95 mcr 15, 0, r0, cr7, cr5, {4}
> c0300014: e1a03003 mov r3, r3
> c0300018: e1a0300d mov r3, sp
> c030001c: e1a0f003 mov pc, r3
>
Thanks Nate.
So these functions no longer appear to reside far away from each
other, so there no veneer has been emitted.
What we're looking for are veneers, i.e., snippets inserted by the
linker that serve as a trampoline so a branch target that is far away
can be reached.
If no symbols exist with 'veneer' in their name *, it might make sense
to rebuild the kernel as Thumb2, which has a branching range of only 8
MB (as opposed to 16 MB for ARM mode)
* I have no idea whether lld names its veneers like this, or even at all
