Re: [PATCH v6 22/25] x86/asm: annotate indirect jumps

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 04:27:47PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:32:13AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 10:56:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > I do not see these in particular, although I do see a lot of:
> > > 
> > >   "sibling call from callable instruction with modified stack frame"
> > 
> > defconfig-build/vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: msr_write()+0x10a: sibling call from callable instruction with modified stack frame
> > defconfig-build/vmlinux.o: warning: objtool:   msr_write()+0x99: (branch)
> > defconfig-build/vmlinux.o: warning: objtool:   msr_write()+0x3e: (branch)
> > defconfig-build/vmlinux.o: warning: objtool:   msr_write()+0x0: <=== (sym)
> > 
> > $ nm defconfig-build/vmlinux.o | grep msr_write
> > 0000000000043250 t msr_write
> > 00000000004289c0 T msr_write
> > 0000000000003056 t msr_write.cold
> > 
> > Below 'fixes' it. So this is also caused by duplicate symbols.
> 
> There's a new linker flag for renaming duplicates:
> 
>   https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26391
> 
> But I guess that doesn't help us now.

Well, depends a bit if clang can do it; we only need this for LTO builds
for now.

> I don't have access to GCC 10 at the moment so I can't recreate it.
> Does this fix it?

Doesn't seem to do the trick :/ I'll try and have a poke later.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux