Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1709041 > unrolled thread

Re: two more objtool warnings: lib/ubsan.o and fs/fs_pin.o

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: two more objtool warnings: lib/ubsan.o and fs/fs_pin.o Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-08-10 23:40 +0200

#1709041 — Re: two more objtool warnings: lib/ubsan.o and fs/fs_pin.o

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:04:47PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 01:25:27PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Hi Josh,
> > 
> > I ran into two more warnings with the two patches you sent me in private,
> > using gcc-7.1.1:
> > 
> > lib/ubsan.o: warning: objtool: val_to_string.constprop.7()+0x97: leave
> > instruction with modified stack frame
> > .config: https://pastebin.com/dl/g04Dwdwx
> > 
> > fs/fs_pin.o: warning: objtool: pin_kill()+0x139: stack state mismatch:
> > cfa1=7+88 cfa2=7+96
> > .config: https://pastebin.com/dl/6gK6MadB
> > 
> > I assume you are faster at analysing than me, so I have not tried to get
> > to the bottom of these at all. Let me know if you need help reproducing
> > the warnings. It's also possible that they are fixed by some other patches
> > that you already sent but that are not in linux-next yet.
> 
> Thanks.  The first one is a relatively easy fix in objtool's drap
> register handling.  I have a working patch for it.
> 
> The second one is a little trickier.
> 
> Instead of:
> 
>   lea	0x8(%rsp), %rsp
> 
> GCC is doing:
> 
>   lea    0x8(%rsp), %rcx
>   mov    %rcx, %rsp
> 
> I don't see why GCC would do that.  We should probably ask some GCC
> folks.  Objtool isn't built to track register values, so it may be a
> little tricky to deal with that pattern correctly if we can't convince
> GCC to fix it.
> 
> Anyway, I'm going to be on vacation next week, but I'll investigate
> further when I get back.

I posted a patch for the first issue and I'll open a GCC bug for the
second issue.

-- 
Josh

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web