Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 07/18] objtool: Introduce INSN_UNKNOWN type
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Raphael Gault <raphael.gault@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
        raph.gault+kdev@gmail.com
References: <20190816122403.14994-1-raphael.gault@arm.com>
 <20190816122403.14994-8-raphael.gault@arm.com>
 <20190822200406.jc3yf77pomxxwep6@treble>
From:   Julien <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3c4e3227-eeb3-371a-d015-a0e0e60e5332@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 21:45:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190822200406.jc3yf77pomxxwep6@treble>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Josh,

On 22/08/19 21:04, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 01:23:52PM +0100, Raphael Gault wrote:
>> On arm64 some object files contain data stored in the .text section.
>> This data is interpreted by objtool as instruction but can't be
>> identified as a valid one. In order to keep analysing those files we
>> introduce INSN_UNKNOWN type. The "unknown instruction" warning will thus
>> only be raised if such instructions are uncountered while validating an
>> execution branch.
>>
>> This change doesn't impact the x86 decoding logic since 0 is still used
>> as a way to specify an unknown type, raising the "unknown instruction"
>> warning during the decoding phase still.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Raphael Gault <raphael.gault@arm.com>
> 
> Is there a reason such data can't be moved to .rodata?  That would seem
> like the proper fix.
> 

Raphaël can confirm, if I remember correctly, that issue was encountered 
on assembly files implementing crypto algorithms were some 
words/double-words of data were in the middle of the .text. I think it 
is done this way to make sure the data can be loaded in a single 
instruction. So moving it to another section could impact the crypto 
performance depending on the relocations.

That was my understanding at least.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Thierry