Received: by 2002:a05:6358:11c7:b0:104:8066:f915 with SMTP id i7csp4077512rwl; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 02:10:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZCduLt0FvpkkC2q2wyTqY9/+I7+H7wa8bkIdA621WPCuvM78pahQmRlpH8CJHpIeK9cD34 X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a84c:b0:92e:3b80:9841 with SMTP id dx12-20020a170906a84c00b0092e3b809841mr13476667ejb.42.1679994632786; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 02:10:32 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1679994632; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=yLxGEDVlwodwESQROGCNSg+IIts3gTpynE7i3b5Km4ncKRSVzE1JAjImS9P5JhiVQh THjynIK4K4PiodYCV9FH/IIkImLWx122d6rG/OQRS41LJ6eR+GPG4GqE/ofjWWlbQqdm ioGaPYivpuem802g+du44DV/JpyiFs+RqZZdKo4dUTgcbrC5on/UMT+eD0SVsD5cNOy7 /iR+PbA2moXsxC6JVAOWbHeme3quniZIreUMFjnWRRvuPLEmhnPEFErJkTwrr/qgJBRC gEACW2ikr7LBVkAUy/09NkepkweHGaQ8dwiRpxWbECgF6mvLnT2aa//q7MvmNnVtyfK+ 31sw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:mime-version:user-agent:references:message-id :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature:dkim-signature; bh=QFXm9dUsvHxQ2fc/osJ+sXZSmg69/OPpP6gOT6zZ/VA=; b=nksrQYKeJmodEw2nqY4oFpqJYvp1cS+pQ1NX8WHGMNUmF2VALtMJvlNFLSIyf8hFTE NwzBZltf2CeU5nnb/YFemfNKE0VaxNNv3gj06iPFXlw3X/UsS7lJZNNShaxgZzBiufnB X0EVWhJIncL5AKXsQ6d24hOufjznN2bzQVuVBvI58zzlbFEiFChmtzMLPKhV+URJ30ut H+usWj+y1fUi3Bz7QFtLQYnxNsqlOiqZTvxfb/vOGRshuC01r7GWFx6q4UbE6DWbd/I7 3PjlLZMeWvOrpNi+N7Xht+N3Jn1herlVwu8tATnTKMU+0br/AYePa3bd00JXYQRNNLxp nkpg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=Hgzv36HG; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=HfAF798M; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id hu16-20020a170907a09000b0093b05f2035dsi15982648ejc.27.2023.03.28.02.10.07; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 02:10:32 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=Hgzv36HG; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=HfAF798M; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230371AbjC1JHs (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 28 Mar 2023 05:07:48 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33376 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229611AbjC1JHr (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2023 05:07:47 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E4E159D4 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 02:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46161FD6A; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 09:07:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1679994464; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QFXm9dUsvHxQ2fc/osJ+sXZSmg69/OPpP6gOT6zZ/VA=; b=Hgzv36HG6Bc4Nzw/1MHpESK8+4MnFtcfkXlhWFUrkS3URhOUT8hpoPDAR72Nnwu/va3WrI zKAcDkgGx9OUKuOu4VlqLjAibW8xnUr10KaJItdn7Y3ZZxggtd3WcFb/9QBcO/w7j0I/Q6 CH/8LtD2DlQ+PgG7P14iN71t/blODzE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1679994464; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QFXm9dUsvHxQ2fc/osJ+sXZSmg69/OPpP6gOT6zZ/VA=; b=HfAF798M6MGL9xfyamkE0PONfwqgFOND2xUy3+e8Kh1oCibCxXTsdihjXfBlgfkE/3r+FD D2vulruLp30wa1Cg== Received: from pobox.suse.cz (pobox.suse.cz [10.100.2.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AEA82C141; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 09:07:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 11:07:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Miroslav Benes To: Josh Poimboeuf cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] objtool: Add per-function rate limiting for unreachable warnings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 27 Mar 2023, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Unreachable instruction warnings are rate limited to once per object > file. That no longer makes sense for vmlinux validation, which might > have other unreachable instructions lurking in other places. Change it > to once per function. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf > --- > tools/objtool/check.c | 4 ++++ > tools/objtool/include/objtool/elf.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c > index 73dd091c0075..67a684225702 100644 > --- a/tools/objtool/check.c > +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c > @@ -4557,6 +4557,10 @@ static int validate_reachable_instructions(struct objtool_file *file) > if (insn->visited || ignore_unreachable_insn(file, insn)) > continue; > > + if (insn->sym->warned) > + continue; > + insn->sym->warned = 1; > + Ok > WARN_FUNC("unreachable instruction", insn->sec, insn->offset); > return 1; But we still return here when an unreachable instruction is encountered and warned about. Or maybe I am just misunderstanding the purpose. If not, would it be better to just collect the number of warnings per object as we do elsewhere? warnings++; and then at the end return warnings; Miroslav