[Linux-kernel-mentees] Fwd: [PATCH v4] x86/entry: emit a symbol for register restoring thunk

Lukas Bulwahn lukas.bulwahn at gmail.com
Thu Jan 14 11:49:20 UTC 2021

Dwaipayan and Aditya, here is another candidate for a checkpatch rule.


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org>
Date: Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/entry: emit a symbol for register restoring thunk
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers at google.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner
<tglx at linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo at redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov
<bp at alien8.de>, Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com>, Arnd Bergmann
<arnd at arndb.de>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe at redhat.com>, Jonathan Corbet
<corbet at lwn.net>, <x86 at kernel.org>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor at gmail.com>, Miguel Ojeda
<ojeda at kernel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby at kernel.org>, Joe Perches
<joe at perches.com>, <linux-doc at vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org>, <clang-built-linux at googlegroups.com>

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:46:24AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:


> when building with LLVM_IAS=1 (Clang's integrated assembler). Josh
> notes:

>   So basically, you can use an .L symbol *inside* a function or a code
>   segment, you just can't use the .L symbol to contain the code using a
>   SYM_*_START/END annotation pair.

is a stronger statement than this:

> +  Developers should avoid using local symbol names that are prefixed with
> +  ``.L``, as this has special meaning for the assembler; a symbol entry will
> +  not be emitted into the symbol table. This can prevent ``objtool`` from
> +  generating correct unwind info. Symbols with STB_LOCAL binding may still be
> +  used, and ``.L`` prefixed local symbol names are still generally useable
> +  within a function, but ``.L`` prefixed local symbol names should not be used
> +  to denote the beginning or end of code regions via

and seems more what I'd expect - SYM_FUNC* is also affected for example.
Even though other usages are probably not very likely it seems better to
keep the stronger statement in case someone comes up with one, and to
stop anyone spending time wondering why only SYM_CODE_START_LOCAL is

This also looks like a good candiate for a checkpatch rule, but that can
be done separately of course.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clang Built Linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to clang-built-linux+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
-------------- next part --------------


More information about the Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list