[bootwrapper PATCH v2 11/13] Announce locations of memory objects

[Mark Rutland]

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 03:30:53PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:56:51 +0000
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
> > To make it easier to debug boot failures, log the location of memory
> > objects at boot time.
> > 
> > This is logged to the serial console as:
> > 
> > | Boot-wrapper v0.2
> > | Entered at EL3
> > | Memory layout:
> > | [0000000080000000..0000000080001f90] => boot-wrapper
> > | [000000008000fff8..0000000080010000] => mbox
> > | [0000000080200000..00000000822af200] => kernel
> > | [0000000088000000..0000000088002857] => dtb
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
> > ---

> > +void print_ulong_hex(unsigned long val)
> > +{
> > +	const char hex_chars[16] = "0123456789abcdef";
> 
> This breaks the build for me (I guess because of the const?):
> -------------------
> ld --gc-sections arch/aarch64/boot.o arch/aarch64/stack.o arch/aarch64/utils.o arch/aarch64/init.o arch/aarch64/psci.o common/boot.o common/bakery_lock.o common/platform.o common/lib.o common/init.o common/psci.o common/gic-v3.o -o linux-system.axf --script=model.lds
> ld: common/platform.o: in function `print_ulong_hex':
> /src/boot-wrapper-aarch64.git/common/platform.c:58: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_guard'
> ld: /src/boot-wrapper-aarch64.git/common/platform.c:58: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_guard'
> ld: /src/boot-wrapper-aarch64.git/common/platform.c:66: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
> /src/boot-wrapper-aarch64.git/common/platform.c:66:(.text.print_ulong_hex+0xa0): relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_CALL26 against undefined symbol `__stack_chk_fail'
> make: *** [Makefile:684: linux-system.axf] Error 1
> ------------------
> 
> Adding -fno-stack-protector fixes it again.
> 
> I am still checking on each one of those compiler options, shall I send a
> smaller version of that patch 3/9 of mine, meanwhile, just carrying the
> uncontested -ffreestanding and -nostdlib, plus -fno-stack-protector?

Yes please!

Thanks,
Mark.