Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 25 Jun 2020 20:33:51 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/22] kbuild: lto: postpone objtool
Message-ID: <20200625183351.GH4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200624203200.78870-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20200624203200.78870-6-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20200624211908.GT4817@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200624214925.GB120457@google.com>
 <20200625074716.GX4817@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200625162226.GC173089@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200625162226.GC173089@google.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 09:22:26AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 09:47:16AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Right, then we need to make --no-vmlinux work properly when
> > !DEBUG_ENTRY, which I think might be buggered due to us overriding the
> > argument when the objname ends with "vmlinux.o".
> 
> Right. Can we just remove that and  pass --vmlinux to objtool in
> link-vmlinux.sh, or is the override necessary somewhere else?

Think we can remove it; it was just convenient when running manually.

> > > > > +ifdef CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION
> > > > > +ifneq ($(SKIP_STACK_VALIDATION),1)
> > > > > +cmd_ld_ko_o +=								\
> > > > > +	$(objtree)/tools/objtool/objtool				\
> > > > > +		$(if $(CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC),orc generate,check)		\
> > > > > +		--module						\
> > > > > +		$(if $(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER),,--no-fp)			\
> > > > > +		$(if $(CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL),--no-unreachable,)		\
> > > > > +		$(if $(CONFIG_RETPOLINE),--retpoline,)			\
> > > > > +		$(if $(CONFIG_X86_SMAP),--uaccess,)			\
> > > > > +		$(@:.ko=$(prelink-ext).o);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +endif # SKIP_STACK_VALIDATION
> > > > > +endif # CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION
> > > > 
> > > > What about the objtool invocation from link-vmlinux.sh ?
> > > 
> > > What about it? The existing objtool_link invocation in link-vmlinux.sh
> > > works fine for our purposes as well.
> > 
> > Well, I was wondering why you're adding yet another objtool invocation
> > while we already have one.
> 
> Because we can't run objtool until we have compiled bitcode to native
> code, so for modules, we're need another invocation after everything has
> been compiled.

Well, that I understand, my question was why we need one in
scripts/link-vmlinux.sh and an additional one. I think we're just
talking past one another and agree we only need one.