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:   Wed, 16 Sep 2020 11:06:20 +0200
From:   peterz@infradead.org
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@intel.com>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        "Li, Philip" <philip.li@intel.com>, x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/seves] BUILD SUCCESS WITH WARNING
 e6eb15c9ba3165698488ae5c34920eea20eaa38e
Message-ID: <20200916090620.GN2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <5f60c4e0.Ru0MTgSE9A7mqhpG%lkp@intel.com>
 <20200915135519.GJ14436@zn.tnic>
 <20200915141816.GC28738@shao2-debian>
 <20200915160554.GN14436@zn.tnic>
 <20200915170248.gcv54pvyckteyhk3@treble>
 <20200915172152.GR14436@zn.tnic>
 <CAKwvOdkh=bZE6uY8zk_QePq5B3fY1ue9VjEguJ_cQi4CtZ4xgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANpmjNPWOus2WnMLSAXnzaXC5U5RDM3TTeV8vFDtvuZvrkoWtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200916083032.GL2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CANpmjNOBUp0kRTODJMuSLteE=-woFZ2nUzk1=H8wqcusvi+T_g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNOBUp0kRTODJMuSLteE=-woFZ2nUzk1=H8wqcusvi+T_g@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:46:41AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 10:30, <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 08:09:16PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 19:40, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:21 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > > init/calibrate.o: warning: objtool: asan.module_ctor()+0xc: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > > > > init/calibrate.o: warning: objtool: asan.module_dtor()+0xc: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > > > > init/version.o: warning: objtool: asan.module_ctor()+0xc: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > > > > init/version.o: warning: objtool: asan.module_dtor()+0xc: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > > > > certs/system_keyring.o: warning: objtool: asan.module_ctor()+0xc: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > > > > certs/system_keyring.o: warning: objtool: asan.module_dtor()+0xc: call without frame pointer save/setup
> > >
> > > This one also appears with Clang 11. This is new I think because we
> > > started emitting ASAN ctors for globals redzone initialization.
> > >
> > > I think we really do not care about precise stack frames in these
> > > compiler-generated functions. So, would it be reasonable to make
> > > objtool ignore all *san.module_ctor and *san.module_dtor functions (we
> > > have them for ASAN, TSAN, MSAN)?
> >
> > The thing is, if objtool cannot follow, it cannot generate ORC data and
> > our unwinder cannot unwind through the instrumentation, and that is a
> > fail.
> >
> > Or am I missing something here?
> 
> They aren't about the actual instrumentation. The warnings are about
> module_ctor/module_dtor functions which are compiler-generated, and
> these are only called on initialization/destruction (dtors only for
> modules I guess).
> 
> E.g. for KASAN it's the calls to __asan_register_globals that are
> called from asan.module_ctor. For KCSAN the tsan.module_ctor is
> effectively a noop (because __tsan_init() is a noop), so it really
> doesn't matter much.
> 
> Is my assumption correct that the only effect would be if something
> called by them fails, we just don't see the full stack trace? I think
> we can live with that, there are only few central places that deal
> with ctors/dtors (do_ctors(), ...?).

Not only fails, lockdep for example likes to store stack traces of
various callsites etc.. Also perf (NMI) likes to think it can unwind at
all times.

> The "real" fix would be to teach the compilers about "frame pointer
> save/setup" for generated functions, but I don't think that's
> realistic.

How is that unrealistic? If you build with framepointers enabled, the
compiler is supposed to know about this stuff.