22.10.2020 19:23, Russell King - ARM Linux admin пишет: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 06:20:40PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 18:11, Russell King - ARM Linux admin >> <li...@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 06:06:32PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 17:57, Dmitry Osipenko <dig...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 22.10.2020 10:06, Ard Biesheuvel пишет: >>>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 05:30, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:00:06AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>>>>>>> 22.10.2020 02:40, Kees Cook пишет: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 01:57:37AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The vfp_kmode_exception() function now is unreachable using relative >>>>>>>>>> branching in THUMB2 kernel configuration, resulting in a "relocation >>>>>>>>>> truncated to fit: R_ARM_THM_JUMP19 against symbol >>>>>>>>>> `vfp_kmode_exception'" >>>>>>>>>> linker error. Let's use long jump in order to fix the issue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Eek. Is this with gcc or clang? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> GCC 9.3.0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fixes: eff8728fe698 ("vmlinux.lds.h: Add PGO and AutoFDO input >>>>>>>>>> sections") >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are you sure it wasn't 512dd2eebe55 ("arm/build: Add missing >>>>>>>>> sections") ? >>>>>>>>> That commit may have implicitly moved the location of .vfp11_veneer, >>>>>>>>> though I thought I had chosen the correct position. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I re-checked that the fixes tag is correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dig...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> arch/arm/vfp/vfphw.S | 3 ++- >>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/vfp/vfphw.S b/arch/arm/vfp/vfphw.S >>>>>>>>>> index 4fcff9f59947..6e2b29f0c48d 100644 >>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/vfp/vfphw.S >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/vfp/vfphw.S >>>>>>>>>> @@ -82,7 +82,8 @@ ENTRY(vfp_support_entry) >>>>>>>>>> ldr r3, [sp, #S_PSR] @ Neither lazy restore nor FP >>>>>>>>>> exceptions >>>>>>>>>> and r3, r3, #MODE_MASK @ are supported in kernel mode >>>>>>>>>> teq r3, #USR_MODE >>>>>>>>>> - bne vfp_kmode_exception @ Returns through lr >>>>>>>>>> + ldr r1, =vfp_kmode_exception >>>>>>>>>> + bxne r1 @ Returns through lr >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> VFPFMRX r1, FPEXC @ Is the VFP enabled? >>>>>>>>>> DBGSTR1 "fpexc %08x", r1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This seems like a workaround though? I suspect the vfp11_veneer needs >>>>>>>>> moving? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know where it needs to be moved. Please feel free to make a >>>>>>>> patch if you have a better idea, I'll be glad to test it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I might have just been distracted by the common "vfp" prefix. It's >>>>>>> possible that the text section shuffling just ended up being very large, >>>>>>> so probably this patch is right then! >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I already sent a fix for this issue: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=9018/1 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The offending commit contains stable tag, so I assume that fixes tag is >>>>> mandatory. Yours patch misses the fixes tag. >>>> >>>> Russell, mind adding that? Or would you like me to update the patch in >>>> the patch system? >>> >>> Rather than adding the IT, I'm suggesting that we solve it a different >>> way - ensuring that the two bits of code are co-located. There's no >>> reason for them to be separated, and the assembly code entry point is >>> already called indirectly. >>> >>> The problem is the assembly ends up in the .text section which ends up >>> at the start of the binary, but depending on the compiler, functions >>> in .c files end up in their own sections. It would be good if, as >>> Dmitry has shown that it is indeed possible, to have them co-located. >> >> Why is that better? I provided a minimal fix which has zero impact on >> ARM builds, and minimal impact on Thumb2 builds, given that it retains >> the exact same semantics as before, but using a different opcode. > > I think you just described the reason there. Why should we force > everything to use a different opcode when a short jump _should_ > suffice? > > Your patch may be a single line, but it has a slightly greater > impact than the alternative two line solution. >
But the two line change isn't portable to stable kernels as-is, isn't it?