Re: [RFC V2 00/16] objtool: Add support for Arm64

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:50:57PM +0000, Raphael Gault wrote:
> Hi Josh,
> 
> Thanks for offering your help and sorry for the late answer.
> 
> My understanding is that a table of offsets is built by GCC, those
> offsets being scaled by 4 before adding them to the base label.
> I believe the offsets are stored in the .rodata section. To find the
> size of that table, it is needed to find a comparison, which can be
> optimized out apprently. In that case the end of the array can be found
> by locating labels pointing to data behind it (which is not 100% safe).
> 
> On 5/16/19 3:29 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 11:36:39AM +0100, Raphael Gault wrote:
> >> Noteworthy points:
> >> * I still haven't figured out how to detect switch-tables on arm64. I
> >> have a better understanding of them but still haven't implemented checks
> >> as it doesn't look trivial at all.
> >
> > Switch tables were tricky to get right on x86.  If you share an example
> > (or even just a .o file) I can take a look.  Hopefully they're somewhat
> > similar to x86 switch tables.  Otherwise we may want to consider a
> > different approach (for example maybe a GCC plugin could help annotate
> > them).
> >
> 
> The case which made me realize the issue is the one of
> arch/arm64/kernel/module.o:apply_relocate_add:
> 
> ```
> What seems to happen in the case of module.o is:
>   334:   90000015        adrp    x21, 0 <do_reloc>
> which retrieves the location of an offset in the rodata section, and a
> bit later we do some extra computation with it in order to compute the
> jump destination:
>   3e0:   78625aa0        ldrh    w0, [x21, w2, uxtw #1]
>   3e4:   10000061        adr     x1, 3f0 <apply_relocate_add+0xf8>
>   3e8:   8b20a820        add     x0, x1, w0, sxth #2
>   3ec:   d61f0000        br      x0
> ```
> 
> Please keep in mind that the actual offsets might vary.
> 
> I'm happy to provide more details about what I have identified if you
> want me to.

Thanks.  I'll try to take a deeper look.

Were these patches based on tip/master?  There were some minor conflicts
in arch/arm64/Kconfig and arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile.

I'm also getting a build failure on arm64:

  make[4]: *** No rule to make target '/root/linux/tools/objtool/arch/arm64/arch_special.o', needed by '/root/linux/tools/objtool/arch/arm64/objtool-in.o'.  Stop

It looks like arch/arm64/Build and arch/x86/Build are trying to build
from arch_special.c which doesn't exist.

-- 
Josh