From patchwork Fri Oct 28 14:33:31 2022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Sathvika Vasireddy X-Patchwork-Id: 1696146 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@legolas.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: legolas.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org (client-ip=2404:9400:2:0:216:3eff:fee1:b9f1; helo=lists.ozlabs.org; envelope-from=linuxppc-dev-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: legolas.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=kM9vGOrr; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2404:9400:2:0:216:3eff:fee1:b9f1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by legolas.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4MzQ754tMXz23l4 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2022 01:34:57 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4MzQ746XP6z3cHw for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2022 01:34:56 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=kM9vGOrr; dkim-atps=neutral X-Original-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=sv@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=kM9vGOrr; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4MzQ6g5SjSz3cFQ for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2022 01:34:35 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 29SEB81L026510; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:34:16 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=gMfFNvsrdFXtawn8XRHQRW/OhAVAeacUEVexkBFje9I=; b=kM9vGOrrq115P3YzXCzQo7P2X3EowvH/HDVJTZI8Qt9uxeteDU3wli1VXFneAflYeTQ6 lUYz+vGczaddpbAXMCHfjCuwr1dxnaeM0fXqumLaCAoX5hp5ujl7XGB2w6kWjRTJKs2t Gd79NWX5cUEv0+s2prl8gG7XZ3R5+WQ03FytddMDmUtSY1fh598qzkSKPaH7AvoyNGZG 6luTgXq0/kh7aJl7LJkigG1SG7yUIPTqnXTPYO25F2IEygtpoQJnv7p501BpQPO4o1zF ND9bONzYZKnXNOUHugngUopSJORJCshPcV7J5a5lHwAGifiyleFdtW0p5rQqinY5gdrc ZQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3kggm70w2e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:34:16 +0000 Received: from m0098421.ppops.net (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 29SEBpH9031237; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:34:15 GMT Received: from ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (47.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.71]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3kggm70w0s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:34:15 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 29SEKdPA019344; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:34:13 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3kfahmjqef-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:34:13 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 29SEYBM163766832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:34:11 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65F92A4040; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:34:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD61A4053; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:34:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-c3569c4c-1ef8-11b2-a85c-ee139cda3133.ibm.com.com (unknown [9.43.124.163]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:34:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Sathvika Vasireddy To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: [PATCH v5 01/16] powerpc: Fix __WARN_FLAGS() for use with Objtool Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 20:03:31 +0530 Message-Id: <20221028143346.183569-2-sv@linux.ibm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.31.1 In-Reply-To: <20221028143346.183569-1-sv@linux.ibm.com> References: <20221028143346.183569-1-sv@linux.ibm.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: -WThpeUm0tluSo4aTaJzGrera9egP_T0 X-Proofpoint-GUID: k7s8MRPtTeZWezhoqmktAHYynXTslbZW X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-10-28_07,2022-10-27_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=885 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2210170000 definitions=main-2210280090 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: peterz@infradead.org, npiggin@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aik@ozlabs.ru, mingo@redhat.com, sv@linux.ibm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mbenes@suse.cz, chenzhongjin@huawei.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Commit 1e688dd2a3d675 ("powerpc/bug: Provide better flexibility to WARN_ON/__WARN_FLAGS() with asm goto") updated __WARN_FLAGS() to use asm goto, and added a call to 'unreachable()' after the asm goto for optimal code generation. With CONFIG_OBJTOOL enabled, 'annotate_unreachable()' statement in 'unreachable()' tries to note down the location of the subsequent instruction in a separate elf section to aid code flow analysis. However, on powerpc, this results in gcc emitting a call to a symbol of size 0. This results in objtool complaining of "unannotated intra-function call" since the target symbol is not a valid function call destination. Objtool wants this annotation for code flow analysis, which we are not yet enabling on powerpc. As such, expand the call to 'unreachable()' in __WARN_FLAGS() without annotate_unreachable(): barrier_before_unreachable(); __builtin_unreachable(); This still results in optimal code generation for __WARN_FLAGS(), while getting rid of the objtool warning. We still need barrier_before_unreachable() to work around gcc bugs 82365 and 106751: - https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82365 - https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106751 Tested-by: Naveen N. Rao Reviewed-by: Naveen N. Rao Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy Acked-by: Josh Poimboeuf Signed-off-by: Sathvika Vasireddy --- arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h index 61a4736355c2..ef42adb44aa3 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bug.h @@ -99,7 +99,8 @@ __label__ __label_warn_on; \ \ WARN_ENTRY("twi 31, 0, 0", BUGFLAG_WARNING | (flags), __label_warn_on); \ - unreachable(); \ + barrier_before_unreachable(); \ + __builtin_unreachable(); \ \ __label_warn_on: \ break; \