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;
Date:   Thu, 2 Apr 2020 17:04:07 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
Cc:     Julien Thierry <jthierry@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] objtool: Add support for intra-function calls
Message-ID: <20200402150407.GD20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200402082220.808-1-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
 <20200402082220.808-4-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
 <db508586-258a-0616-d649-e76e95df9611@redhat.com>
 <4e779423-395d-5e2e-b641-5604902bf096@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4e779423-395d-5e2e-b641-5604902bf096@oracle.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 03:24:45PM +0200, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
> On 4/2/20 2:53 PM, Julien Thierry wrote:
> > On 4/2/20 9:22 AM, Alexandre Chartre wrote:

> > > +??? sec = find_section_by_name(file->elf,
> > > +?????????????????? ".rela.discard.intra_function_call");
> > 
> > I'm wondering, do we really need to annotate the intra_function_call
> > and group the in a section?
> > 
> > Would it be a problem to consider all (static) call instructions with
> > a destination that is not the start offset of a symbol to be an
> > intra-function call (and set insn->intra_function_call and
> > insn->jump_dest accordingly)?
> 
> Correct, we could automatically detect intra-function calls instead of
> having to annotate them. However, I choose to annotate them because I don't
> think that's not an expected construct in a "normal" code flow (at least
> on x86). So objtool would still issue a warning on intra-function calls
> by default, and you can annotate them to indicate if they are expected.

I wondered the same thing when reading the patch. I'm confliected on
this. On the one hand auto-detecting this seems like an excellent idea.

If/when the compiler generates them, they had better be okay too.

Josh?