This reverts commit afb2a4fb84555ef9e61061f6ea63ed7087b295d5.
Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <[email protected]>
---
drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
index 31eb1e287ce1..475f37796779 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ cflags-$(CONFIG_ARM) += -DEFI_HAVE_STRLEN -DEFI_HAVE_STRNLEN \
-DEFI_HAVE_MEMCHR -DEFI_HAVE_STRRCHR \
-DEFI_HAVE_STRCMP -fno-builtin -fpic \
$(call cc-option,-mno-single-pic-base)
-cflags-$(CONFIG_RISCV) += -fpic -DNO_ALTERNATIVE -mno-relax
+cflags-$(CONFIG_RISCV) += -fpic -DNO_ALTERNATIVE
cflags-$(CONFIG_LOONGARCH) += -fpie
cflags-$(CONFIG_EFI_PARAMS_FROM_FDT) += -I$(srctree)/scripts/dtc/libfdt
--
2.20.1
On 06.03.24 09:56, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> This reverts commit afb2a4fb84555ef9e61061f6ea63ed7087b295d5.
>
This comes without a reason - which is likely something around "will fix
this properly later". But then you regress first and only fix
afterwards. Can't that be done the other way around?
Jan
> Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> index 31eb1e287ce1..475f37796779 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ cflags-$(CONFIG_ARM) += -DEFI_HAVE_STRLEN -DEFI_HAVE_STRNLEN \
> -DEFI_HAVE_MEMCHR -DEFI_HAVE_STRRCHR \
> -DEFI_HAVE_STRCMP -fno-builtin -fpic \
> $(call cc-option,-mno-single-pic-base)
> -cflags-$(CONFIG_RISCV) += -fpic -DNO_ALTERNATIVE -mno-relax
> +cflags-$(CONFIG_RISCV) += -fpic -DNO_ALTERNATIVE
> cflags-$(CONFIG_LOONGARCH) += -fpie
>
> cflags-$(CONFIG_EFI_PARAMS_FROM_FDT) += -I$(srctree)/scripts/dtc/libfdt
--
Siemens AG, Technology
Linux Expert Center
Hi Jan,
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 8:52 PM Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 06.03.24 09:56, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> > This reverts commit afb2a4fb84555ef9e61061f6ea63ed7087b295d5.
> >
>
> This comes without a reason - which is likely something around "will fix
> this properly later". But then you regress first and only fix
> afterwards. Can't that be done the other way around?
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. Can you help explain it
more clearly? Do you mean "delete mno-relax instead of revert
directly?"
Thanks,
Yunhui
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 14:08, yunhui cui <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 8:52 PM Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On 06.03.24 09:56, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> > > This reverts commit afb2a4fb84555ef9e61061f6ea63ed7087b295d5.
> > >
> >
> > This comes without a reason - which is likely something around "will fix
> > this properly later". But then you regress first and only fix
> > afterwards. Can't that be done the other way around?
>
> Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. Can you help explain it
> more clearly? Do you mean "delete mno-relax instead of revert
> directly?"
>
You should order your patches in a way that does not create
intermediate states (between 1-2 or between 2-3) where the original
problem is being recreated.
So in this case, you should
a) fix the issue
b) revert the existing patches in *opposite* order
However, I don't think the EFI stub can use GP - please refer to my other reply.
Hi Ard,
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 9:11 PM Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 14:08, yunhui cui <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 8:52 PM Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 06.03.24 09:56, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> > > > This reverts commit afb2a4fb84555ef9e61061f6ea63ed7087b295d5.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This comes without a reason - which is likely something around "will fix
> > > this properly later". But then you regress first and only fix
> > > afterwards. Can't that be done the other way around?
> >
> > Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. Can you help explain it
> > more clearly? Do you mean "delete mno-relax instead of revert
> > directly?"
> >
>
> You should order your patches in a way that does not create
> intermediate states (between 1-2 or between 2-3) where the original
> problem is being recreated.
>
> So in this case, you should
> a) fix the issue
> b) revert the existing patches in *opposite* order
Simply, I plan to remove "-mno-relax" and
"\|R_RISCV_$(BITS)\|R_RISCV_RELAX" in the third patch (fix patch).
> However, I don't think the EFI stub can use GP - please refer to my other reply.
The problem we encountered is that gcc 13 will optimize efistub using gp.
Thanks,
Yunhui
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 14:27, yunhui cui <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ard,
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 9:11 PM Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 14:08, yunhui cui <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jan,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 8:52 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemenscom> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 06.03.24 09:56, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> > > > > This reverts commit afb2a4fb84555ef9e61061f6ea63ed7087b295d5.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This comes without a reason - which is likely something around "will fix
> > > > this properly later". But then you regress first and only fix
> > > > afterwards. Can't that be done the other way around?
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. Can you help explain it
> > > more clearly? Do you mean "delete mno-relax instead of revert
> > > directly?"
> > >
> >
> > You should order your patches in a way that does not create
> > intermediate states (between 1-2 or between 2-3) where the original
> > problem is being recreated.
> >
> > So in this case, you should
> > a) fix the issue
> > b) revert the existing patches in *opposite* order
> Simply, I plan to remove "-mno-relax" and
> "\|R_RISCV_$(BITS)\|R_RISCV_RELAX" in the third patch (fix patch).
>
Why is that better than the current approach?