When dbf460087755 ("objtool/x86: Fixup frame-pointer vs rethunk") was backported to some stable branches, the check for dest->embedded_insn in is_special_call() was missed. Add it back in.
Signed-off-by: John Sperbeck jsperbeck@google.com ---
I think 6.1.y, 5.15.y, and 5.10.y are the LTS branches missing the bit of code that this patch re-adds.
tools/objtool/check.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c index f8008ab31eef..cb363b507a32 100644 --- a/tools/objtool/check.c +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c @@ -2478,7 +2478,7 @@ static bool is_special_call(struct instruction *insn) if (!dest) return false;
- if (dest->fentry) + if (dest->fentry || dest->embedded_insn) return true; }
base-commit: 7d24402875c75ca6e43aa27ae3ce2042bde259a4
Hi,
Thanks for your patch.
FYI: kernel test robot notices the stable kernel rule is not satisfied.
The check is based on https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html#opti...
Rule: add the tag "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" in the sign-off area to have the patch automatically included in the stable tree. Subject: [PATCH] objtool/x86: add missing embedded_insn check Link: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20231026015728.1601280-1-jsperbeck%40google.c...
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 01:57:28AM +0000, John Sperbeck wrote:
When dbf460087755 ("objtool/x86: Fixup frame-pointer vs rethunk") was backported to some stable branches, the check for dest->embedded_insn in is_special_call() was missed. Add it back in.
Signed-off-by: John Sperbeck jsperbeck@google.com
I think 6.1.y, 5.15.y, and 5.10.y are the LTS branches missing the bit of code that this patch re-adds.
Did you test this and find it solved anything for you? Your changelog is pretty sparse :(
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:17 PM Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 01:57:28AM +0000, John Sperbeck wrote:
When dbf460087755 ("objtool/x86: Fixup frame-pointer vs rethunk") was backported to some stable branches, the check for dest->embedded_insn in is_special_call() was missed. Add it back in.
Signed-off-by: John Sperbeck jsperbeck@google.com
I think 6.1.y, 5.15.y, and 5.10.y are the LTS branches missing the bit of code that this patch re-adds.
Did you test this and find it solved anything for you? Your changelog is pretty sparse :(
thanks,
greg k-h
I wasn't sure what to write for the comment. The original backported commit said that it prevented this objtool warning:
vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: srso_untrain_ret+0xd: call without frame pointer save/setup
But because of the missing piece, the warning still appears. That is, the backport had no effect at all.
With this patch, the message really is gone in my builds. Shall I resend my patch with an updated comment?
I also wasn't sure whether a Fixes annotation was appropriate, and which commit to reference, if so.
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:35:08PM -0700, John Sperbeck wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:17 PM Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 01:57:28AM +0000, John Sperbeck wrote:
When dbf460087755 ("objtool/x86: Fixup frame-pointer vs rethunk") was backported to some stable branches, the check for dest->embedded_insn in is_special_call() was missed. Add it back in.
Signed-off-by: John Sperbeck jsperbeck@google.com
I think 6.1.y, 5.15.y, and 5.10.y are the LTS branches missing the bit of code that this patch re-adds.
Did you test this and find it solved anything for you? Your changelog is pretty sparse :(
thanks,
greg k-h
I wasn't sure what to write for the comment. The original backported commit said that it prevented this objtool warning:
vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: srso_untrain_ret+0xd: call withoutframe pointer save/setup
But because of the missing piece, the warning still appears. That is, the backport had no effect at all.
Perhaps say that?
With this patch, the message really is gone in my builds. Shall I resend my patch with an updated comment?
Build warnings going away is good, but does the result still run properly?
I also wasn't sure whether a Fixes annotation was appropriate, and which commit to reference, if so.
That's fine, just more information might be nice here.
thanks,
greg k-h
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Greg KH -
John Sperbeck -
kernel test robot