Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 17:23:50 -0800
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, sfr@canb.auug.org.au,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: objtool warning for next-20221118
Message-ID: <20221123012350.kelmmadh65lyswqz@treble>
References: <20221121040736.GA3738360@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y3thrQxfcvZSXFlr@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20221121145215.GF4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <20221122051605.4hcbslwxez2trdvt@treble>
 <Y3yJxQJ9DwxTx7km@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y3yJxQJ9DwxTx7km@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:35:17AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 09:16:05PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 
> > It's complaining about an unreachable instruction after a call to
> > arch_cpu_idle_dead().  In this case objtool detects the fact
> > arch_cpu_idle_dead() doesn't return due to its call to the
> > non-CONFIG_SMP version of play_dead().  But GCC has no way of detecting
> > that because the caller is in another translation unit.
> > 
> > As far as I can tell, that function should never return.  Though it
> > seems to have some dubious semantics (see xen_pv_play_dead() for
> > example, which *does* seem to return?).  I'm thinking it would be an
> > improvement to enforce that noreturn behavior across all arches and
> > platforms, sprinkling __noreturn and BUG() on arch_cpu_idle_dead() and
> > maybe some of it callees, where needed.
> > 
> > Peter, what do you think?  I could attempt a patch.
> 
> I'm thinking the Xen case makes all this really rather difficult :/
> 
> While normally a CPU is brought up through a trampoline, Xen seems to
> have implemented it by simply returning from play_dead(), and afaict
> that is actually a valid way to go about doing it.

o_O

How the @#$% is that a valid way of doing it?  Why not just do it the
normal way?

> Perhaps the best way would be to stick a REACHABLE annotation in
> arch_cpu_idle_dead() or something?

It what universe would we expect a function named "play_dead" to instead
finish bringing the CPU up and return?

That's just awful...  I don't see anything "valid" about it.

-- 
Josh