Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:47:06PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 09:53:09PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> > > but it also makes objtool unhappy:

> > >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/generic.o: warning: objtool: get_fixed_ranges()+0x9b: unreachable instruction

> I just checked two of them in the disassembly. In both cases it's jump
> label related. Here is one:
> 
>       asm volatile("1: rdmsr\n"
>  410:   b9 59 02 00 00          mov    $0x259,%ecx
>  415:   0f 32                   rdmsr
>  417:   49 89 c6                mov    %rax,%r14
>  41a:   48 89 d3                mov    %rdx,%rbx
>       return EAX_EDX_VAL(val, low, high);
>  41d:   48 c1 e3 20             shl    $0x20,%rbx
>  421:   48 09 c3                or     %rax,%rbx
>  424:   0f 1f 44 00 00          nopl   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>  429:   eb 0f                   jmp    43a <get_fixed_ranges+0xaa>
>       do_trace_read_msr(msr, val, 0);
>  42b:   bf 59 02 00 00          mov    $0x259,%edi   <------- "unreachable"
>  430:   48 89 de                mov    %rbx,%rsi
>  433:   31 d2                   xor    %edx,%edx
>  435:   e8 00 00 00 00          callq  43a <get_fixed_ranges+0xaa>
>  43a:   44 89 35 00 00 00 00    mov    %r14d,0x0(%rip)        # 441 <get_fixed_ranges+0xb1>

Thomas provided the actual .o file, and from that we find that the
.rela__jump_table entries look like:

000000000010  000100000002 R_X86_64_PC32     0000000000000000 .text + 3e9
000000000014  000100000002 R_X86_64_PC32     0000000000000000 .text + 3f0
000000000018  006100000018 R_X86_64_PC64     0000000000000000 __tracepoint_read_msr + 8
000000000020  000100000002 R_X86_64_PC32     0000000000000000 .text + 424
000000000024  000100000002 R_X86_64_PC32     0000000000000000 .text + 3f0
000000000028  006100000018 R_X86_64_PC64     0000000000000000 __tracepoint_read_msr + 8

>From this we find that the jump target that goes with the NOP at +424 is
+3f0, not +42b as one would expect.

And as Josh noted, it is also 'weird' that this +3f0 is the very same as
the target for the previous entry.

When we compare the code at both sites, we find:

3f0:       bf 58 02 00 00          mov    $0x258,%edi
3f5:       48 89 de                mov    %rbx,%rsi
3f8:       31 d2                   xor    %edx,%edx
3fa:       e8 00 00 00 00          callq  3ff <get_fixed_ranges+0x6f>
		3fb: R_X86_64_PC32      do_trace_read_msr-0x4

vs

42b:       bf 59 02 00 00          mov    $0x259,%edi
430:       48 89 de                mov    %rbx,%rsi
433:       31 d2                   xor    %edx,%edx
435:       e8 00 00 00 00          callq  43a <get_fixed_ranges+0xaa>
		436: R_X86_64_PC32      do_trace_read_msr-0x4

Which is not in fact the same code.

So for some reason the .rela__jump_table are buggy on this clang build.