Re: [PATCH 1/7] stop_machine: Introduce stop_machine_nmi()

From: Chang S. Bae

Date: Tue Jan 27 2026 - 14:17:17 EST


On 1/27/2026 6:49 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:

vmlinux.o: error: objtool: stop_machine_nmi_handler+0x23: call to {dynamic}() leaves .noinstr.text section

This one would be hard to fix because that's the

err = msdata->fn(msdata->data);

function pointer which objtool can't see through.

Yes. Under certain config, the 0-day bot tirggers this with CONFIG_NOINSTR_VALIDATION=y.

Objtool ends up with the following path:

tools/objtool/check.c::validation_call()
-> noinstr_call_dest()
{
/*
* We can't deal with indirect function calls at present;
* assume they're instrumented.
*/
if (!func) {
if (file->pv_ops)
return pv_call_dest(file, insn);

return false;
}
...
}

So every indirect call under noinstr is conservatively treated as invalid except for pv_ops which seems to be investigated further. In this series, however, the destination code is to in .noinstr.text.

Given this, I considered something to be adjusted on the tool side, e.g. by whitelisting the case along the lines of

if (!func) {
...

if (!strncmp(insn_func(insn)->name, "stop_machine_nmi_handler", 24))
return true;

return false;
}

The existing pv_ops handling also looks somewhat misaligned with large objects like vmlinux.o.


So my suggestion would be to do:

struct nmi_multi_stop_data {
cpu_stop_safe_fn_t fn;

note the different function pointer type which we will hopefully catch during
review in the sense that only *safe* functions should be callable by the
NMI-specific stomp_machine.

Along with:

diff --git a/kernel/stop_machine.c b/kernel/stop_machine.c
index 189b4b108d13..55a350048d4c 100644
--- a/kernel/stop_machine.c
+++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c
@@ -230,7 +230,9 @@ bool noinstr stop_machine_nmi_handler(void)
raw_cpu_write(stop_machine_nmi_ctrl.nmi_enabled, false);
msdata = raw_cpu_read(stop_machine_nmi_ctrl.msdata);
+ instrumentation_begin();
err = msdata->fn(msdata->data);
+ instrumentation_end();
raw_cpu_write(stop_machine_nmi_ctrl.err, err);
return true;
}

I also thought this change, but I was a bit hesitant as it could be seen as lifting up the no-instrumentation.

Now I suppose the net effect will be the same with other workaround, e.g. tool-side whitelisting. So I think I can go with this as you suggested (with a clear note on this).


ofc.

Unless someone has a better idea ofc...

Sure.

Thanks,
Chang