| Message ID | 20240129192644.3359978-1-mcgrof@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | modules: few of alignment fixes | expand |
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:26:39AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > Masahiro, if there no issues feel free to take this or I can take them in > too via the modules-next tree. Lemme know! I've queued this onto modules-testing to get winder testing [0] [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=modules-testing Luis
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 02:11:44PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:26:39AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > Masahiro, if there no issues feel free to take this or I can take them in > > too via the modules-next tree. Lemme know! > > I've queued this onto modules-testing to get winder testing [0] I've moved it to modules-next as I've found no issues. Luis
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 3:05 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 02:11:44PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:26:39AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > Masahiro, if there no issues feel free to take this or I can take them in > > > too via the modules-next tree. Lemme know! > > > > I've queued this onto modules-testing to get winder testing [0] > > I've moved it to modules-next as I've found no issues. > > Luis I believe this patch series is wrong. I thought we agreed that the alignment must be added to individual asm code, not to the linker script. I am surprised that you came back to this. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 12:20:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 3:05 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 02:11:44PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:26:39AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > Masahiro, if there no issues feel free to take this or I can take them in > > > > too via the modules-next tree. Lemme know! > > > > > > I've queued this onto modules-testing to get winder testing [0] > > > > I've moved it to modules-next as I've found no issues. > > > > Luis > > > I believe this patch series is wrong. > > I thought we agreed that the alignment must be added to > individual asm code, not to the linker script. > > I am surprised that you came back to this. I misseed the dialog on the old cover letter, sorry. I've yanked these patches out. I'd expect a respin from Helge. Luis
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:23:21AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 12:20:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 3:05 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 02:11:44PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:26:39AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > > Masahiro, if there no issues feel free to take this or I can take them in > > > > > too via the modules-next tree. Lemme know! > > > > > > > > I've queued this onto modules-testing to get winder testing [0] > > > > > > I've moved it to modules-next as I've found no issues. > > > > > > Luis > > > > > > I believe this patch series is wrong. > > > > I thought we agreed that the alignment must be added to > > individual asm code, not to the linker script. > > > > I am surprised that you came back to this. > > I misseed the dialog on the old cover letter, sorry. I've yanked these patches > out. I'd expect a respin from Helge. Just goind down memory lane -- Helge, the work here pending was to move this to the linker script. Were you going to follow up on this? I'll split out my test patch as that's useful for other reasons now. Luis
On 10/21/24 21:22, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:23:21AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 12:20:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 3:05 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 02:11:44PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:26:39AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: >>>>>> Masahiro, if there no issues feel free to take this or I can take them in >>>>>> too via the modules-next tree. Lemme know! >>>>> >>>>> I've queued this onto modules-testing to get winder testing [0] >>>> >>>> I've moved it to modules-next as I've found no issues. >>>> >>>> Luis >>> >>> >>> I believe this patch series is wrong. >>> >>> I thought we agreed that the alignment must be added to >>> individual asm code, not to the linker script. >>> >>> I am surprised that you came back to this. >> >> I misseed the dialog on the old cover letter, sorry. I've yanked these patches >> out. I'd expect a respin from Helge. > > Just goind down memory lane -- Helge, the work here pending was to move > this to the linker script. Were you going to follow up on this? Masahiro mentions above, that the alignment should be added to the individual asm code. This happened in the meantime for parisc, but I'm not sure if all platforms get this right. So in addition, I still believe that adding the alignment to the linker script too is another right thing to do. Helge
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 5:07 AM Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 10/21/24 21:22, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:23:21AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 12:20:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > >>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 3:05 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 02:11:44PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:26:39AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > >>>>>> Masahiro, if there no issues feel free to take this or I can take them in > >>>>>> too via the modules-next tree. Lemme know! > >>>>> > >>>>> I've queued this onto modules-testing to get winder testing [0] > >>>> > >>>> I've moved it to modules-next as I've found no issues. > >>>> > >>>> Luis > >>> > >>> > >>> I believe this patch series is wrong. > >>> > >>> I thought we agreed that the alignment must be added to > >>> individual asm code, not to the linker script. > >>> > >>> I am surprised that you came back to this. > >> > >> I misseed the dialog on the old cover letter, sorry. I've yanked these patches > >> out. I'd expect a respin from Helge. > > > > Just goind down memory lane -- Helge, the work here pending was to move > > this to the linker script. Were you going to follow up on this? > > Masahiro mentions above, that the alignment should be added > to the individual asm code. This happened in the meantime for parisc, but > I'm not sure if all platforms get this right. > So in addition, I still believe that adding the alignment to the linker > script too is another right thing to do. > > Helge Yes, I believe the proper alignment should be specified in asm code.
Helge Deller had written a series of patches to fix a few misalignemnt annotations in the kernel [0]. Three of these patches were tagged as being stable candidates. Because of these annotation I suggested proof of the imapact, however we did not easily have a way to verify the value / impact of fixing a few misaligment changes in the kernel for modules. For the more hotpath alignment fix Helge had I suggested we could easily test this by stress testing find_symbol() with a few set of modules. This adds such tests to allow us to both allow us to test the impact of such possible fix, and also while at it, let's us test future improvements on the find_symbol() path. Changes on this v2: - Adds new selftest for kallsyms - Drops patch #1 as Masahiro Yamada already applied it to linux-kbuild/fixes - Removes stable tags - Drops patch #3 as it was not needed - Adds a new patch with the issues noted by Helge as a fix to commit f3304ecd7f06 ("linux/export: use inline assembler to populate symbol CRCs") as noted by Masahiro Yamada - Adds selftest impact on x86_64 for patch #2, this really should be tested on parisc though as that's an example architecture where we could see perhaps more improvement [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231122221814.139916-1-deller@kernel.org Masahiro, if there no issues feel free to take this or I can take them in too via the modules-next tree. Lemme know! Helge Deller (2): modules: Ensure 64-bit alignment on __ksymtab_* sections modules: Add missing entry for __ex_table Luis Chamberlain (2): selftests: add new kallsyms selftests vmlinux.lds.h: add missing alignment for symbol CRCs include/linux/export-internal.h | 1 + lib/Kconfig.debug | 103 ++++++++++++++ lib/Makefile | 1 + lib/tests/Makefile | 1 + lib/tests/module/.gitignore | 4 + lib/tests/module/Makefile | 15 ++ lib/tests/module/gen_test_kallsyms.sh | 128 ++++++++++++++++++ scripts/module.lds.S | 9 +- tools/testing/selftests/module/Makefile | 12 ++ tools/testing/selftests/module/config | 3 + tools/testing/selftests/module/find_symbol.sh | 81 +++++++++++ 11 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) create mode 100644 lib/tests/Makefile create mode 100644 lib/tests/module/.gitignore create mode 100644 lib/tests/module/Makefile create mode 100755 lib/tests/module/gen_test_kallsyms.sh create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/module/Makefile create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/module/config create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/module/find_symbol.sh