On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:37 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote: > > In one rare case, Clang generated the following code: > > 5ca: 83 e0 21 and $0x21,%eax > 5cd: b9 04 00 00 00 mov $0x4,%ecx > 5d2: ff 24 c5 00 00 00 00 jmpq *0x0(,%rax,8) > 5d5: R_X86_64_32S .rodata+0x38 > > which uses the corresponding jump table relocations: > > 000000000038 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + 834 > 000000000040 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + 5d9 > 000000000048 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000050 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000058 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000060 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000068 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000070 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000078 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000080 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000088 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000090 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000098 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 0000000000a0 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 0000000000a8 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 0000000000b0 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 0000000000b8 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 0000000000c0 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 0000000000c8 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 0000000000d0 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 0000000000d8 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 0000000000e0 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 0000000000e8 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 0000000000f0 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 0000000000f8 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000100 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000108 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000110 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000118 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000120 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000128 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000130 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + b96 > 000000000138 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + 82f > 000000000140 000200000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000000 .text + 828 > > Since %eax was masked with 0x21, only the first two and the last two > entries are possible. > > Objtool doesn't actually emulate all the code, so it isn't smart enough > to know that all the middle entries aren't reachable. They point to the > NOP padding area after the end of the function, so objtool seg faulted > when it tried to dereference a NULL insn->func. > > After this fix, objtool still gives an "unreachable" error because it > stops reading the jump table when it encounters the bad addresses: > > /home/jpoimboe/objtool-tests/adm1275.o: warning: objtool: > adm1275_probe()+0x828: unreachable instruction > > While the above code is technically correct, it's very wasteful of > memory -- it uses 34 jump table entries when only 4 are needed. It's > also not possible for objtool to validate this type of switch table > because the unused entries point outside the function and objtool has no > way of determining if that's intentional. Hopefully the Clang folks can > fix it.
So this came from drivers/hwmon/pmbus/adm1275.c ? Any special configuration? -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
