scripts/kallsyms: Avoid ARM veneer symbols
Dave P Martin
Dave.Martin at arm.com
Fri Jul 5 13:26:59 EDT 2013
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 05:42:44PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 05 July 2013, Dave P Martin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 06:03:04PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 25 June 2013, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > suggest would significantly increase the build time since the
> > > kallsyms+linker stage cannot be done in parallel or sped up
> > > using ccache.
> > >
> > > > But including the veneer symbols in kallsyms is arguably not all
> > > > that useful.
> > > >
> > > > The main potential effect is that profiling might occasionally
> > > > sample the PC as being in a completely bogus function which it
> > > > never passed through at all, because of the way kallsyms tracks
> > > > only symbol locations and not sizes (if I remember right) --
> > > > so a veneer will actually get accounted against some arbitrary
> > > > adjacent function.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know how much this matters.
> > >
> > > Interesting point. No idea how often that happens. All the veneers
> > > for one section are in one place though, so we could in theory
> > > add a kallsyms entry for that section as long as can identify
> > > it.
> >
> > We could collapse any contiguous sequence of __veneer_* symbols down
> > to a single symbol to mark those holes.
> >
> > However, many kallsyms passes could still be needed: each pass might add
> > extra veneer blocks, unless the size of kallsyms data is identical to
> > that in the previous pass. The expected convergence rate is faster,
> > though.
>
> Right, it wouldn't guarantee to converge after two passes, just make
> it very likely.
>
> > > > > The easiest solution is to skip veneers in kallsyms in the
> > > > > same way we already skip a couple of other symbols.
> >
> > Your suggestion of omitting the symbols completely seems to be the only
> > way to ensure convergence in 2 passes, so far as I can see.
> >
> >
> > Adding size information to every entry in kallsyms would make it possible
> > to identify the "holes" without potentially requiring many kallsyms passes,
> > but it would bloat the table. The extra info would be interesting only
> > for a tiny subset of the symbols. I expect people aren't going to like
> > that much.
> >
> > So I guess your original suggestion may be the best thing to do for now,
> > after all...
> >
> > There is no proper reserved symbol namespace for linker-generated symbols,
> > so a real symbol could have the name __*_veneer, at which point things
> > start to get really confusing. But hopefully that won't happen much.
> > I don't see any such symbol right now, and hopefully nobody will be so
> > silly as to add one...
> >
> > If we eventually need to fix the bogus symbol resolution problem, I can't
> > see an alternative to adding size info to every symbol. But we should
> > leave that for now. It doesn't sound like a serious problem.
>
> Unfortunately I have run into additional problems now after doing a few
> hundred more builds:
>
> * not all veneers end in _veneer, some also end in _from_arm or _from_thumb.
> This is easy enough to check for in the same way I did for _veneer.
I think there are a small number of patterns to check for.
__*_veneer, __*_from_arm and __*_from_thumb should cover most cases.
> * There are actually symbols without a name on ARM, which screws up the
> kallsyms.c parser. These also seem to be veneers, but attached to some
> random function:
Hmmm, I don't what those are. By default, we should probably ignore those
too. Maybe they have something to do with link-time relocation processing.
>
> $ nm obj-tmp/.tmp_vmlinux1 | head
> c09e8db1 t
> c09e8db5 t
> c09e8db9 t # <==========
> c09e8dbd t
> c0abfc29 t
> c0008000 t $a
> c0f7b640 t $a
>
> $ objdump -Dr obj-tmp/.tmp_vmlinux1 | grep -C 30 c09e8db.
> c0851fcc <wlc_phy_edcrs_lock>:
> c0851fcc: b538 push {r3, r4, r5, lr}
> c0851fce: b500 push {lr}
> c0851fd0: f7bb d8dc bl c000d18c <__gnu_mcount_nc>
> c0851fd4: f240 456b movw r5, #1131 ; 0x46b
> c0851fd8: 4604 mov r4, r0
> c0851fda: f880 14d5 strb.w r1, [r0, #1237] ; 0x4d5
> c0851fde: 462a mov r2, r5
> c0851fe0: f44f 710b mov.w r1, #556 ; 0x22c
> c0851fe4: f7ff fe6d bl c0851cc2 <write_phy_reg>
> c0851fe8: 4620 mov r0, r4
> c0851fea: 462a mov r2, r5
> c0851fec: f240 212d movw r1, #557 ; 0x22d
> c0851ff0: f7ff fe67 bl c0851cc2 <write_phy_reg>
> c0851ff4: 4620 mov r0, r4
> c0851ff6: f240 212e movw r1, #558 ; 0x22e
> c0851ffa: f44f 7270 mov.w r2, #960 ; 0x3c0
> c0851ffe: f196 fedb bl c09e8db8 <tpci200_free_irq+0x78> # <===========
> c0852002: 4620 mov r0, r4
> c0852004: f240 212f movw r1, #559 ; 0x22f
> c0852008: f44f 7270 mov.w r2, #960 ; 0x3c0
> c085200c: e8bd 4038 ldmia.w sp!, {r3, r4, r5, lr}
> c0852010: f7ff be57 b.w c0851cc2 <write_phy_reg>
>
>
> ... # in tpci200_free_irq:
> c09e8d9e: e003 b.n c09e8da8 <tpci200_free_irq+0x68>
> c09e8da0: f06f 0415 mvn.w r4, #21
> c09e8da4: e000 b.n c09e8da8 <tpci200_free_irq+0x68>
> c09e8da6: 4c01 ldr r4, [pc, #4] ; (c09e8dac <tpci200_free_irq+0x6c>)
> c09e8da8: 4620 mov r0, r4
> c09e8daa: bdf8 pop {r3, r4, r5, r6, r7, pc}
> c09e8dac: fffffe00 ; <UNDEFINED> instruction: 0xfffffe00
> c09e8db0: f4cf b814 b.w c06b7ddc <bna_enet_sm_chld_stop_wait_entry>
> c09e8db4: f53e bed8 b.w c0727b68 <gem_do_stop>
> c09e8db8: f668 bf83 b.w c0851cc2 <write_phy_reg> # <==========
> c09e8dbc: d101 bne.n c09e8dc2 <tpci200_free_irq+0x82>
> c09e8dbe: f435 b920 b.w c061e002 <twl_reset_sequence+0x34c>
>
> It makes no sense to me at all that a function in one driver can just call
> write_phy_reg a couple of times, but need a veneer in the middle, and put
> that veneer in a totally unrelated function in another driver!
I think that if ld inserts a veneer for a function anywhere, branches
from any object in the link to that target symbol can reuse the same
veneer as a trampoline, effectively appearing to branch through an
unrelated location to reach the destination.
ld inserts veneers between individual input sections, but I don't
think they have to go next to the same section the branch originates
from. In the above code, it looks like that series of unconditional
branches after the end of tpci200_free_irq might be a common veneer pool
for many different destinations.
LTO may also make the expected compilation unit boundaries disappear
completely. Anything could end up almost anywhere in that case.
Files could get intermingled, inlined and generally spread all over the
place.
Even so, veneers shouldn't be needed in the common case where we're not
jumping across .rodata.
>
> If this is a binutils bug or gcc bug, we should probably just fix it, but it
> might be easier to work around it by changing kallsyms.c some more.
I haven't found a trivial way to reproduce those nameless symbols.
I don't know whether they're a bug or not...
Making kallsyms robust against this might be a good idea anyway.
> > > > > -/*
> > > > > - * This ignores the intensely annoying "mapping symbols" found
> > > > > - * in ARM ELF files: $a, $t and $d.
> > > > > - */
> > > > > static inline int is_arm_mapping_symbol(const char *str)
> > > >
> > > > The function's name is now wrong. Should it be renamed or split up?
> > >
> > > Sure I can rename it. Any suggestions?
> >
> > Maybe just something more generic like is_arm_special_symbol()?
>
> Ok, I can do that.
Cheers
---Dave
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list