On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 8:54 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabb...@google.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 08:08:33 PDT (-0700), guo...@kernel.org wrote: > > From: Guo Ren <guo...@linux.alibaba.com> > > > > v1 is commit: 6184358da0004c8fd940afda6c0a0fa4027dc911 which has > > been reverted. > > > > When enable LOCKDEP, static_obj() will cause error: > > > > [ 0.067192] INFO: trying to register non-static key. > > [ 0.067325] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation. > > [ 0.067449] turning off the locking correctness validator. > > [ 0.067718] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.7.0-rc7-dirty #44 > > [ 0.067945] Call Trace: > > [ 0.068369] [<ffffffe00020323c>] walk_stackframe+0x0/0xa4 > > [ 0.068506] [<ffffffe000203422>] show_stack+0x2a/0x34 > > [ 0.068631] [<ffffffe000521e4e>] dump_stack+0x94/0xca > > [ 0.068757] [<ffffffe000255a4e>] register_lock_class+0x5b8/0x5bc > > [ 0.068969] [<ffffffe000255abe>] __lock_acquire+0x6c/0x1d5c > > [ 0.069101] [<ffffffe0002550fe>] lock_acquire+0xae/0x312 > > [ 0.069228] [<ffffffe000989a8e>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x40/0x5a > > [ 0.069357] [<ffffffe000247c64>] complete+0x1e/0x50 > > [ 0.069479] [<ffffffe000984c38>] rest_init+0x1b0/0x28a > > [ 0.069660] [<ffffffe0000016a2>] 0xffffffe0000016a2 > > [ 0.069779] [<ffffffe000001b84>] 0xffffffe000001b84 > > [ 0.069953] [<ffffffe000001092>] 0xffffffe000001092 > > > > Because some __initdata static variables is before _stext: > > > > static int static_obj(const void *obj) > > { > > unsigned long start = (unsigned long) &_stext, > > end = (unsigned long) &_end, > > addr = (unsigned long) obj; > > > > /* > > * static variable? > > */ > > if ((addr >= start) && (addr < end)) > > return 1; > > > > if (arch_is_kernel_data(addr)) > > return 1; > > > > We could implement arch_is_kernel_data to fixup it. > > > > Link: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/1593266228-61125-1-git-send-email-guo...@kernel.org/T/#t > > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guo...@linux.alibaba.com> > > Reported-by: Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> > > Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabb...@google.com> > > Cc: Atish Patra <ati...@atishpatra.org> > > Cc: Andreas Schwab <sch...@linux-m68k.org> > > Cc: Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> > > --- > > arch/riscv/include/asm/sections.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c | 9 +++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 arch/riscv/include/asm/sections.h > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sections.h > > b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sections.h > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000..2317b9e > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sections.h > > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ > > + > > +#ifndef _ASM_RISCV_SECTIONS_H > > +#define _ASM_RISCV_SECTIONS_H > > + > > +#define arch_is_kernel_data arch_is_kernel_data > > + > > +#include <asm-generic/sections.h> > > + > > +extern bool init_mem_is_free; > > + > > +static inline int arch_is_kernel_data(unsigned long addr) > > +{ > > + if (init_mem_is_free) > > + return 0; > > + > > + return addr >= (unsigned long)__init_begin && > > + addr < (unsigned long)__init_end; > > +} > > +#endif /* _ASM_RISCV_SECTIONS_H */ > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c > > index 2c6dd32..9ebd5eb4 100644 > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c > > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ > > #include <linux/sched/task.h> > > #include <linux/swiotlb.h> > > #include <linux/smp.h> > > +#include <linux/poison.h> > > > > #include <asm/cpu_ops.h> > > #include <asm/setup.h> > > @@ -112,3 +113,11 @@ static int __init topology_init(void) > > return 0; > > } > > subsys_initcall(topology_init); > > + > > +bool init_mem_is_free = false; > > + > > +void free_initmem(void) > > +{ > > + free_initmem_default(POISON_FREE_INITMEM); > > + init_mem_is_free = true; > > +} > > I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to do here. Yesterday I got > another version of this patch set that moves init data around, today a > different one. Yesterday's is tested and simpler, and given it's so late in > the process I'm inclined to take that as I don't want to break anything. >
I agree. This version will have some more conflicts with other patches and it's too late in cycle. It's best to merge it in 5.10. > Right now I have > > 84814460eef9 ("riscv: Fixup bootup failure with HARDENED_USERCOPY") > a78c6f5956a9 ("RISC-V: Make sure memblock reserves the memory containing DT") > 549738f15da0 ("Linux 5.9-rc8") > > Unless there's some functional bug, that's what I'm going to send out for 5.9 > -- I'm not all that worried about lacking the ability to free init data. The > above seems like fine 5.10 material. > > Let me know if I'm missing something here. -- Regards, Atish