[PATCH v2] efistub: Only link libstub to final vmlinux

[Huacai Chen]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 4:07 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 10:01, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 2:55 PM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu at loongson.cn> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Josh and Ard,
> > >
> > > On 2025/10/20 下午2:55, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 9:24 AM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu at loongson.cn> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Josh, Ard and Huacai,
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2025/10/18 上午1:05, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> ...
> > > >>
> > > >>> But IIUC, the libstub code runs *very* early, and wouldn't show up in a
> > > >>> stack trace anyway, because there are no traces of it on the stack once
> > > >>> it branches to head.S code (which doesn't save the link register).
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for your discussions.
> > > >>
> > > >> Are you OK with this current patch?
> > > > For me the current patch is just OK.
> > >
> > > We have discussed this a few times but there is almost no consensus
> > > of what should happen next and nothing changes.
> > >
> > > Could you please give me a clear reply? Then I can make progress for
> > > the following series:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/loongarch/20250917112716.24415-1-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn/
> > For me, this patch is OK, ignore __efistub_ prefix in objtool is also
> > OK [1]. But I cannot accept the way that modifying the efistub part
> > only for LoongArch.
> >
> > Clear enough?
> >
>
> LoongArch is the only architecture which has the problem, so I don't
> see a reason to modify other architectures.
>From your reply I think the efistub code is completely right, but
objtool cannot handle the "noreturn" function pointer. And this patch
is a workaround rather than a proper fix (so you don't want to touch
other architectures), right?


Huacai