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;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.500.231\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/lib: Do not use local symbols with
 SYM_CODE_START_LOCAL()
From:   Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <38e24fd4-9213-229d-9919-7ae3bfb113bb@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 May 2023 12:39:47 -0700
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <24E47178-C177-425F-A8EF-CFFAE22597D4@gmail.com>
References: <20230525184244.2311-1-namit@vmware.com>
 <38e24fd4-9213-229d-9919-7ae3bfb113bb@intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk


> On May 25, 2023, at 12:05 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On 5/25/23 11:42, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> From: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
>>=20
>> When SYM_CODE_START_LOCAL() is used, the symbols are local but need =
to
>> be preserved in the object. However, using the ".L" label prefix does
>> not retain the symbol in the object.
>>=20
>> It is beneficial to be able to map instruction pointers back to =
symbols,
>> for instance for profiling. Otherwise, there are code addresses that =
do
>> not map back to any symbol.  Consequently, the ".L" label prefix =
should
>> not be used when SYM_CODE_START_LOCAL() is used.
>>=20
>> Few symbols, such as .Lbad_put_user_clac and currently have both the
>> SYM_CODE_START_LOCAL() invocation and the ".L" prefix.  This commit
>> removes the ".L" prefix from these symbols.
>>=20
>> No functional change, other then emitting these symbols into the =
object,
>> is intended.
>=20
> Nadav, could you perhaps do a bit of research on how this situation =
came
> to be?  Was it an accident or on purpose that these symbols came to be
> .L?  Then, could you CC the folks who made this change and ask them
> directly if they intended to induce the effects that you find =
undesirable?

Fair enough. I actually thought it is an oversight, but it now seems
intentional (although I am not sure I understand/agree with the reason).=20=


So apparently, for one of the symbols from my v1 (which was already
removed), I see that Borislav Petkov suggested to prepend the =E2=80=9C.L=E2=
=80=9D in
order to for them not to be visible [1].

The reason that is given for not making the functions visible is that
these are "functions with very local names=E2=80=9D.

I do not think in this tradeoff not exposing local names worth
preventing profilers (and their users) from understanding where a
sample/trace is was taken. If for instance you look at a branch
trace (e.g., using Intel PT) you want to see the symbol to which a
branch goes to.

Borislav, Jiri - do you agree?


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190906075550.23435-2-jslaby@suse.cz/