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;
Message-ID: <623307fe-a29a-c691-b07b-4d2168d4bdcc@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Jan 2023 18:12:47 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] objtool: continue if find_insn() fails in
 decode_instructions()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        jpoimboe@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, aik@ozlabs.ru,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, mingo@redhat.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu,
        mbenes@suse.cz, npiggin@gmail.com, chenzhongjin@huawei.com,
        sfr@canb.auug.org.au, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20221208072813.25799-1-sv@linux.ibm.com>
 <Y7lHsw4diDgVc9ip@gmail.com>
From:   Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y7lHsw4diDgVc9ip@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

Hi Ingo, Happy New Year!

On 07/01/23 15:51, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Currently, decode_instructions() is failing if it is not able to find
>> instruction, and this is happening since commit dbcdbdfdf137b4
>> ("objtool: Rework instruction -> symbol mapping") because it is
>> expecting instruction for STT_NOTYPE symbols.
>>
>> Due to this, the following objtool warnings are seen:
>>   [1] arch/powerpc/kernel/optprobes_head.o: warning: objtool: optprobe_template_end(): can't find starting instruction
>>   [2] arch/powerpc/kernel/kvm_emul.o: warning: objtool: kvm_template_end(): can't find starting instruction
>>   [3] arch/powerpc/kernel/head_64.o: warning: objtool: end_first_256B(): can't find starting instruction
>>
>> The warnings are thrown because find_insn() is failing for symbols that
>> are at the end of the file, or at the end of the section. Given how
>> STT_NOTYPE symbols are currently handled in decode_instructions(),
>> continue if the instruction is not found, instead of throwing warning
>> and returning.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@linux.ibm.com>
> The SOB chain doesn't look valid: is Naveen N. Rao, the first SOB line, the
> author of the patch? If yes then a matching From: line is needed.
>
> Or if two people developed the patch, then Co-developed-by should be used:
>
>          Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
>          Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
>          Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
>          Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
>
> [ In this SOB sequence "Second Co-Author" is the one who submits the patch. ]
>
> [ Please only use Co-developed-by if actual lines of code were written by
>    the co-author that created copyrightable material - it's not a courtesy
>    tag. Reviewed-by/Acked-by/Tested-by can be used to credit non-code
>    contributions. ]
Thank you for the clarification, and for bringing these points to my 
attention. I'll keep these things in mind. In this case, since both 
Naveen N. Rao and I developed the patch, the below tags
are applicable.

         Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
         Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
         Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
         Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>

However, I would be dropping this particular patch, since I think Nick's 
patch [1] is better to fix the objtool issue.

[1] - 
https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20221220101323.3119939-1-npiggin@gmail.com/ 


Thanks for reviewing!

- Sathvika