[PATCH v6 22/25] x86/asm: annotate indirect jumps

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 02:54:32PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:34 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:24:32PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > > > I still don't see this warning for some reason.
> > >
> > > Do you have CONFIG_XEN enabled? I can reproduce this on ToT master as follows:
> > >
> > > $ git rev-parse HEAD
> > > 585e5b17b92dead8a3aca4e3c9876fbca5f7e0ba
> > > $ make defconfig && \
> > > ./scripts/config -e HYPERVISOR_GUEST -e PARAVIRT -e XEN && \
> > > make olddefconfig && \
> > > make -j110
> > > ...
> > > $ ./tools/objtool/objtool check -arfld vmlinux.o 2>&1 | grep secondary
> > > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: __startup_secondary_64()+0x2: return with
> > > modified stack frame
> > >
> > > > Is it fixed by adding cpu_bringup_and_idle() to global_noreturns[] in
> > > > tools/objtool/check.c?
> > >
> > > No, that didn't fix the warning. Here's what I tested:
> >
> > I think this fixes it:
> >
> > From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe at redhat.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] x86/xen: Fix objtool vmlinux.o validation of xen hypercalls
> >
> > Objtool vmlinux.o validation is showing warnings like the following:
> >
> >   # tools/objtool/objtool check -barfld vmlinux.o
> >   vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: __startup_secondary_64()+0x2: return with modified stack frame
> >   vmlinux.o: warning: objtool:   xen_hypercall_set_trap_table()+0x0: <=== (sym)
> >
> > Objtool falls through all the empty hypercall text and gets confused
> > when it encounters the first real function afterwards.  The empty unwind
> > hints in the hypercalls aren't working for some reason.  Replace them
> > with a more straightforward use of STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD.
> >
> > Reported-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen at google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe at redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S | 9 ++++-----
> >  include/linux/objtool.h | 8 ++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> Confirmed, this fixes the warning, also in LTO builds. Thanks!
> 
> Tested-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen at google.com>

Good... I'll work through the rest of them.

-- 
Josh