On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Stefan Agner <ste...@agner.ch> wrote:
>
> On 05.12.2018 19:41, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 10:40 AM Ard Biesheuvel
> > <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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)
> >
> > Heh, Arnd and I were just talking about this yesterday. Is there a
> > config that sets Thumb2 mode for the kernel?
> >
>
> Yes there is CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL, and it works also with LLVM/Clang.
Sounds like something we should put under CI?
https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/continuous-integration/issues/94
>
> However, it sometimes leads to surprising issues, like I just
> encountered a few days ago:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20181126161645.8177-1-ste...@agner.ch/
>
> --
> Stefan
>
> >>
> >> * I have no idea whether lld names its veneers like this, or even at all
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
