On 21.08.18 19:30, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 20 August 2018 at 06:23, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >> >> On 08/17/2018 02:49 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Alex, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>>>>>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may >>>>>>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, >>>>>>> constants or strings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits >>>>>>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other >>>>>>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and >>>>>>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are >>>>>>> in a section that starts with ".text". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not >>>>>>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces >>>>>>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata >>>>>>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time >>>>>>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- >>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 >>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 >>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- >>>>>>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ >>>>>>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- >>>>>>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- >>>>>>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 >>>>>>> ++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- >>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>>>>>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 >>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- >>>>>>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound >>>>>> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: >>>>>> >>>>>> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >>>>>> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git >>>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >>>>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later >>>>>> <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> >>>>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. >>>>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show >>>>>> copying" >>>>>> and "show warranty" for details. >>>>>> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". >>>>>> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. >>>>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see: >>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. >>>>>> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: >>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. >>>>>> For help, type "help". >>>>>> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... >>>>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. >>>>>> (gdb) r >>>>>> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >>>>>> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] >>>>>> Using host libthread_db library >>>>>> "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". >>>>>> >>>>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >>>>>> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () >>>>>> (gdb) up >>>>>> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () >>>>>> at >>>>>> /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 >>>>>> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); >>>>>> (gdb) print fname >>>>>> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" >>>>>> (gdb) q >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to >>>>>> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that >>>>>> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate >>>>>> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... >>>>>> >>>>>> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. >>>>> >>>>> Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. >>>>> >>>>> Alex >>>>> >>>> This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer >>>> boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. >>>> >>>> If I do: >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk >>>> index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk >>>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif >>>> ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) >>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 >>>> # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further >>>> -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections >>>> else >>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 >>>> endif >>>> >>>> Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bin >>> >>> Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am >>> not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). >> >> I can not reproduce the sandbox breakage (and travis doesn't seem to either, >> otherwise it would be broken for everyone, no?). Can you give me some >> guidelines on how to reproduce the failures for you and I'll just fix it? > > I would like to revert the sandbox changes at least. I don't want to > enable -ffunction-sections, for example.
Could you please explain why? In general I always thought the sandbox target was meant as debugging aid which allows you to find and debug bugs more easily. I would assume that chances for breakage are higher with function and data sections, because the linker could remove code it considers dead? So for a debugging target, I would think it makes sense to have it enabled rather than disabled. Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
