| Message ID | 20180612054837.57146-1-agraf@suse.de |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 7e21fbca26d18327cf7cabaad08df276a06a07d8 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | efi_loader: Rename sections to allow for implicit data | expand |
> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may > be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, > constants or strings. > > In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits > them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other > efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and > -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are > in a section that starts with ".text". > > Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not > interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces > us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata > sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. > > With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time > to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> Thanks, applied to efi-next Alex
Hi Alex, On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may > be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, > constants or strings. > > In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits > them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other > efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and > -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are > in a section that starts with ".text". > > Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not > interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces > us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata > sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. > > With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time > to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> > --- > arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- > arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- > arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- > arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ > arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- > arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- > arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- > board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- > board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- > board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- > 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) > I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" and "show warranty" for details. This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". Type "show configuration" for configuration details. For bug reporting instructions, please see: <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. For help, type "help". Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. (gdb) r Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () (gdb) up #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); (gdb) print fname $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" (gdb) q Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. Hopefully there is no impact on all the x86 builds. Regards, Simon
> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: > > Hi Alex, > >> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may >> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, >> constants or strings. >> >> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits >> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other >> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and >> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are >> in a section that starts with ".text". >> >> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not >> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces >> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata >> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. >> >> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time >> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> >> --- >> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- >> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- >> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ >> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- >> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- >> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- >> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- >> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- >> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >> > > I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound > innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. > > This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: > > gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D > GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git > Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> > This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. > There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" > and "show warranty" for details. > This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". > Type "show configuration" for configuration details. > For bug reporting instructions, please see: > <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. > Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: > <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. > For help, type "help". > Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... > Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. > (gdb) r > Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D > [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] > Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". > > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () > (gdb) up > #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () > at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 > 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); > (gdb) print fname > $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" > (gdb) q > > > Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to > use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that > should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate > commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... > > I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. Alex > > Hopefully there is no impact on all the x86 builds. > > Regards, > Simon
Hi Alex, On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > > >> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: >> >> Hi Alex, >> >>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may >>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, >>> constants or strings. >>> >>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits >>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other >>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and >>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are >>> in a section that starts with ".text". >>> >>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not >>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces >>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata >>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. >>> >>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time >>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- >>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ >>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- >>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- >>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- >>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- >>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- >>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >>> >> >> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound >> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. >> >> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: >> >> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git >> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> >> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. >> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" >> and "show warranty" for details. >> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". >> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. >> For bug reporting instructions, please see: >> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. >> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: >> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. >> For help, type "help". >> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... >> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. >> (gdb) r >> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] >> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". >> >> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () >> (gdb) up >> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () >> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 >> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); >> (gdb) print fname >> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" >> (gdb) q >> >> >> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to >> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that >> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate >> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... >> >> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. > > Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. > > Alex > This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. If I do: diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 --- a/arch/x86/config.mk +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections else PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 endif Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? Regards, Bin
Hi, On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > >> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: > >> > >> Hi Alex, > >> > >>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > >>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may > >>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, > >>> constants or strings. > >>> > >>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits > >>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other > >>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and > >>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are > >>> in a section that starts with ".text". > >>> > >>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not > >>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces > >>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata > >>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. > >>> > >>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time > >>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- > >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- > >>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > >>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > >>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- > >>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ > >>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- > >>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- > >>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- > >>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- > >>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- > >>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > >>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- > >>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) > >>> > >> > >> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound > >> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. > >> > >> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: > >> > >> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D > >> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git > >> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > >> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> > >> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. > >> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" > >> and "show warranty" for details. > >> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". > >> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. > >> For bug reporting instructions, please see: > >> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. > >> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: > >> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. > >> For help, type "help". > >> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... > >> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. > >> (gdb) r > >> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D > >> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] > >> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". > >> > >> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > >> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () > >> (gdb) up > >> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () > >> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 > >> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); > >> (gdb) print fname > >> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" > >> (gdb) q > >> > >> > >> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to > >> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that > >> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate > >> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... > >> > >> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. > > > > Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. > > > > Alex > > > > This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer > boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. > > If I do: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk > index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/config.mk > +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk > @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif > ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) > PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 > # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further > -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections > else > PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 > endif > > Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? > > Regards, > Bin Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). Regards, Simon
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: >> >> >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> >> >>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> >>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may >> >>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, >> >>> constants or strings. >> >>> >> >>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits >> >>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other >> >>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and >> >>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are >> >>> in a section that starts with ".text". >> >>> >> >>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not >> >>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces >> >>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata >> >>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. >> >>> >> >>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time >> >>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. >> >>> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> >> >>> --- >> >>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- >> >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >> >>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >> >>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >> >>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- >> >>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ >> >>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- >> >>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- >> >>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- >> >>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- >> >>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >> >>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >> >>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- >> >>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >> >>> >> >> >> >> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound >> >> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. >> >> >> >> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: >> >> >> >> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >> >> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git >> >> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> >> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> >> >> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. >> >> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" >> >> and "show warranty" for details. >> >> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". >> >> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. >> >> For bug reporting instructions, please see: >> >> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. >> >> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: >> >> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. >> >> For help, type "help". >> >> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... >> >> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. >> >> (gdb) r >> >> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >> >> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] >> >> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". >> >> >> >> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >> >> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () >> >> (gdb) up >> >> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () >> >> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 >> >> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); >> >> (gdb) print fname >> >> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" >> >> (gdb) q >> >> >> >> >> >> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to >> >> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that >> >> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate >> >> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... >> >> >> >> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. >> > >> > Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. >> > >> > Alex >> > >> >> This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer >> boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. >> >> If I do: >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk >> index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk >> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk >> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif >> ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) >> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 >> # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further >> -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections >> else >> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 >> endif >> >> Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? >> >> Regards, >> Bin > > Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am > not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). > I agree since it's getting close to the release date. Regards, Bin
On 08/20/2018 03:43 AM, Bin Meng wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>>>>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may >>>>>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, >>>>>> constants or strings. >>>>>> >>>>>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits >>>>>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other >>>>>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and >>>>>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are >>>>>> in a section that starts with ".text". >>>>>> >>>>>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not >>>>>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces >>>>>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata >>>>>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. >>>>>> >>>>>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time >>>>>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- >>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- >>>>>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ >>>>>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- >>>>>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- >>>>>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- >>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>>>>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- >>>>>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound >>>>> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. >>>>> >>>>> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: >>>>> >>>>> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >>>>> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git >>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >>>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> >>>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. >>>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" >>>>> and "show warranty" for details. >>>>> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". >>>>> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. >>>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see: >>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. >>>>> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: >>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. >>>>> For help, type "help". >>>>> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... >>>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. >>>>> (gdb) r >>>>> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >>>>> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] >>>>> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". >>>>> >>>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >>>>> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () >>>>> (gdb) up >>>>> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () >>>>> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 >>>>> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); >>>>> (gdb) print fname >>>>> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" >>>>> (gdb) q >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to >>>>> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that >>>>> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate >>>>> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... >>>>> >>>>> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. >>>> Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. >>>> >>>> Alex >>>> >>> This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer >>> boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. >>> >>> If I do: >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk >>> index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk >>> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk >>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif >>> ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) >>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 >>> # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further >>> -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections >>> else >>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 >>> endif >>> >>> Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bin >> Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am >> not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). >> > I agree since it's getting close to the release date. I have a fix ready for you. Will send it out soon. Basically the linker scripts only included .bss, not .bss*. Alex
On 08/17/2018 02:49 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: >>>> >>>> Hi Alex, >>>> >>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>>>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may >>>>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, >>>>> constants or strings. >>>>> >>>>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits >>>>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other >>>>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and >>>>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are >>>>> in a section that starts with ".text". >>>>> >>>>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not >>>>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces >>>>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata >>>>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. >>>>> >>>>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time >>>>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- >>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>>>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- >>>>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ >>>>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- >>>>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- >>>>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- >>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- >>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>>>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- >>>>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound >>>> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. >>>> >>>> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: >>>> >>>> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >>>> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git >>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> >>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. >>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" >>>> and "show warranty" for details. >>>> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". >>>> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. >>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see: >>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. >>>> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: >>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. >>>> For help, type "help". >>>> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... >>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. >>>> (gdb) r >>>> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >>>> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] >>>> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". >>>> >>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >>>> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () >>>> (gdb) up >>>> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () >>>> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 >>>> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); >>>> (gdb) print fname >>>> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" >>>> (gdb) q >>>> >>>> >>>> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to >>>> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that >>>> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate >>>> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... >>>> >>>> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. >>> Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. >>> >>> Alex >>> >> This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer >> boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. >> >> If I do: >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk >> index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk >> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk >> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif >> ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) >> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 >> # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further >> -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections >> else >> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 >> endif >> >> Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? >> >> Regards, >> Bin > Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am > not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). I can not reproduce the sandbox breakage (and travis doesn't seem to either, otherwise it would be broken for everyone, no?). Can you give me some guidelines on how to reproduce the failures for you and I'll just fix it? Alex
Hi Alex, On 20 August 2018 at 06:23, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > > On 08/17/2018 02:49 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>>>>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may >>>>>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, >>>>>> constants or strings. >>>>>> >>>>>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits >>>>>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other >>>>>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and >>>>>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are >>>>>> in a section that starts with ".text". >>>>>> >>>>>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not >>>>>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces >>>>>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata >>>>>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. >>>>>> >>>>>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time >>>>>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- >>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- >>>>>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ >>>>>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- >>>>>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- >>>>>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- >>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>>>>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- >>>>>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound >>>>> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. >>>>> >>>>> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: >>>>> >>>>> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >>>>> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git >>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >>>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> >>>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. >>>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" >>>>> and "show warranty" for details. >>>>> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". >>>>> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. >>>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see: >>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. >>>>> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: >>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. >>>>> For help, type "help". >>>>> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... >>>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. >>>>> (gdb) r >>>>> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >>>>> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] >>>>> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". >>>>> >>>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >>>>> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () >>>>> (gdb) up >>>>> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () >>>>> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 >>>>> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); >>>>> (gdb) print fname >>>>> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" >>>>> (gdb) q >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to >>>>> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that >>>>> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate >>>>> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... >>>>> >>>>> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. >>>> >>>> Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. >>>> >>>> Alex >>>> >>> This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer >>> boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. >>> >>> If I do: >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk >>> index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk >>> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk >>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif >>> ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) >>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 >>> # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further >>> -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections >>> else >>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 >>> endif >>> >>> Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bin >> >> Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am >> not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). > > I can not reproduce the sandbox breakage (and travis doesn't seem to either, otherwise it would be broken for everyone, no?). Can you give me some guidelines on how to reproduce the failures for you and I'll just fix it? I would like to revert the sandbox changes at least. I don't want to enable -ffunction-sections, for example. Regards, Simon
On 21.08.18 19:30, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 20 August 2018 at 06:23, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> >> On 08/17/2018 02:49 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Alex, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>>>>>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may >>>>>>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, >>>>>>> constants or strings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits >>>>>>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other >>>>>>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and >>>>>>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are >>>>>>> in a section that starts with ".text". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not >>>>>>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces >>>>>>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata >>>>>>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time >>>>>>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- >>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- >>>>>>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ >>>>>>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- >>>>>>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- >>>>>>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- >>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>>>>>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- >>>>>>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound >>>>>> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: >>>>>> >>>>>> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >>>>>> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git >>>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >>>>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> >>>>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. >>>>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" >>>>>> and "show warranty" for details. >>>>>> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". >>>>>> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. >>>>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see: >>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. >>>>>> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: >>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. >>>>>> For help, type "help". >>>>>> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... >>>>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. >>>>>> (gdb) r >>>>>> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >>>>>> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] >>>>>> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". >>>>>> >>>>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >>>>>> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () >>>>>> (gdb) up >>>>>> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () >>>>>> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 >>>>>> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); >>>>>> (gdb) print fname >>>>>> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" >>>>>> (gdb) q >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to >>>>>> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that >>>>>> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate >>>>>> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... >>>>>> >>>>>> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. >>>>> >>>>> Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. >>>>> >>>>> Alex >>>>> >>>> This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer >>>> boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. >>>> >>>> If I do: >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk >>>> index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk >>>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif >>>> ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) >>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 >>>> # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further >>>> -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections >>>> else >>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 >>>> endif >>>> >>>> Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bin >>> >>> Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am >>> not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). >> >> I can not reproduce the sandbox breakage (and travis doesn't seem to either, otherwise it would be broken for everyone, no?). Can you give me some guidelines on how to reproduce the failures for you and I'll just fix it? > > I would like to revert the sandbox changes at least. I don't want to > enable -ffunction-sections, for example. Could you please explain why? In general I always thought the sandbox target was meant as debugging aid which allows you to find and debug bugs more easily. I would assume that chances for breakage are higher with function and data sections, because the linker could remove code it considers dead? So for a debugging target, I would think it makes sense to have it enabled rather than disabled. Alex
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 09:26:53PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 21.08.18 19:30, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > > On 20 August 2018 at 06:23, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > >> > >> On 08/17/2018 02:49 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Alex, > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Alex, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > >>>>>>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may > >>>>>>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, > >>>>>>> constants or strings. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits > >>>>>>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other > >>>>>>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and > >>>>>>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are > >>>>>>> in a section that starts with ".text". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not > >>>>>>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces > >>>>>>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata > >>>>>>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time > >>>>>>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- > >>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- > >>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > >>>>>>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > >>>>>>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- > >>>>>>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ > >>>>>>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- > >>>>>>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- > >>>>>>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- > >>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- > >>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- > >>>>>>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > >>>>>>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- > >>>>>>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound > >>>>>> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D > >>>>>> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git > >>>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > >>>>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> > >>>>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. > >>>>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" > >>>>>> and "show warranty" for details. > >>>>>> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". > >>>>>> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. > >>>>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see: > >>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. > >>>>>> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: > >>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. > >>>>>> For help, type "help". > >>>>>> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... > >>>>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. > >>>>>> (gdb) r > >>>>>> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D > >>>>>> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] > >>>>>> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > >>>>>> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () > >>>>>> (gdb) up > >>>>>> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () > >>>>>> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 > >>>>>> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); > >>>>>> (gdb) print fname > >>>>>> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" > >>>>>> (gdb) q > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to > >>>>>> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that > >>>>>> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate > >>>>>> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. > >>>>> > >>>>> Alex > >>>>> > >>>> This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer > >>>> boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. > >>>> > >>>> If I do: > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk > >>>> index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 > >>>> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk > >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk > >>>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif > >>>> ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) > >>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 > >>>> # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further > >>>> -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections > >>>> else > >>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 > >>>> endif > >>>> > >>>> Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Bin > >>> > >>> Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am > >>> not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). > >> > >> I can not reproduce the sandbox breakage (and travis doesn't seem to either, otherwise it would be broken for everyone, no?). Can you give me some guidelines on how to reproduce the failures for you and I'll just fix it? > > > > I would like to revert the sandbox changes at least. I don't want to > > enable -ffunction-sections, for example. > > Could you please explain why? In general I always thought the sandbox > target was meant as debugging aid which allows you to find and debug > bugs more easily. > > I would assume that chances for breakage are higher with function and > data sections, because the linker could remove code it considers dead? > So for a debugging target, I would think it makes sense to have it > enabled rather than disabled. I too am puzzled. If it's discarded it wasn't in use. It also makes sandbox match all of the rest of the platforms so further aids in debugging/testing/consistency. -- Tom
Hi Alex, On 21 August 2018 at 13:26, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > > > On 21.08.18 19:30, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >> On 20 August 2018 at 06:23, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>> >>> On 08/17/2018 02:49 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>>>>>>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may >>>>>>>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, >>>>>>>> constants or strings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits >>>>>>>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other >>>>>>>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and >>>>>>>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are >>>>>>>> in a section that starts with ".text". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not >>>>>>>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces >>>>>>>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata >>>>>>>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time >>>>>>>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- >>>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>>>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>>>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- >>>>>>>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ >>>>>>>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- >>>>>>>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- >>>>>>>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- >>>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >>>>>>>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>>>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- >>>>>>>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound >>>>>>> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >>>>>>> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git >>>>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >>>>>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> >>>>>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. >>>>>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" >>>>>>> and "show warranty" for details. >>>>>>> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". >>>>>>> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. >>>>>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see: >>>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. >>>>>>> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: >>>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. >>>>>>> For help, type "help". >>>>>>> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... >>>>>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. >>>>>>> (gdb) r >>>>>>> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >>>>>>> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] >>>>>>> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >>>>>>> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () >>>>>>> (gdb) up >>>>>>> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () >>>>>>> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 >>>>>>> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); >>>>>>> (gdb) print fname >>>>>>> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" >>>>>>> (gdb) q >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to >>>>>>> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that >>>>>>> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate >>>>>>> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex >>>>>> >>>>> This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer >>>>> boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. >>>>> >>>>> If I do: >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk >>>>> index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk >>>>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif >>>>> ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) >>>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 >>>>> # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further >>>>> -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections >>>>> else >>>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 >>>>> endif >>>>> >>>>> Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Bin >>>> >>>> Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am >>>> not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). >>> >>> I can not reproduce the sandbox breakage (and travis doesn't seem to either, otherwise it would be broken for everyone, no?). Can you give me some guidelines on how to reproduce the failures for you and I'll just fix it? >> >> I would like to revert the sandbox changes at least. I don't want to >> enable -ffunction-sections, for example. > > Could you please explain why? In general I always thought the sandbox > target was meant as debugging aid which allows you to find and debug > bugs more easily. > > I would assume that chances for breakage are higher with function and > data sections, because the linker could remove code it considers dead? > So for a debugging target, I would think it makes sense to have it > enabled rather than disabled. Yes I think removing dead could could cause problems. But so could not garbage-collecting sections, so it is not a great argument. Sandbox is targeted at building as much code as possible. Ideally every piece of non-arch-specific code should be built with sandbox. Maybe I am being conservative, but I see no reason to enable it for sandbox. I'll try to think of some better reasons and reply if I can. I also feel that it slipped in under the radar with no review. Regards, Simon
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 04:29:49PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 21 August 2018 at 13:26, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > On 21.08.18 19:30, Simon Glass wrote: > >> Hi Alex, > >> > >> On 20 August 2018 at 06:23, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 08/17/2018 02:49 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Alex, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Alex, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may > >>>>>>>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, > >>>>>>>> constants or strings. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits > >>>>>>>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other > >>>>>>>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and > >>>>>>>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are > >>>>>>>> in a section that starts with ".text". > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not > >>>>>>>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces > >>>>>>>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata > >>>>>>>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time > >>>>>>>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> > >>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- > >>>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- > >>>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > >>>>>>>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > >>>>>>>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- > >>>>>>>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ > >>>>>>>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- > >>>>>>>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- > >>>>>>>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- > >>>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- > >>>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- > >>>>>>>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > >>>>>>>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- > >>>>>>>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound > >>>>>>> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D > >>>>>>> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git > >>>>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > >>>>>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> > >>>>>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. > >>>>>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" > >>>>>>> and "show warranty" for details. > >>>>>>> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". > >>>>>>> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. > >>>>>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see: > >>>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. > >>>>>>> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: > >>>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. > >>>>>>> For help, type "help". > >>>>>>> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... > >>>>>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. > >>>>>>> (gdb) r > >>>>>>> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D > >>>>>>> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] > >>>>>>> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > >>>>>>> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () > >>>>>>> (gdb) up > >>>>>>> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () > >>>>>>> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 > >>>>>>> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); > >>>>>>> (gdb) print fname > >>>>>>> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" > >>>>>>> (gdb) q > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to > >>>>>>> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that > >>>>>>> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate > >>>>>>> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Alex > >>>>>> > >>>>> This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer > >>>>> boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. > >>>>> > >>>>> If I do: > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk > >>>>> index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 > >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk > >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk > >>>>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif > >>>>> ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) > >>>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 > >>>>> # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further > >>>>> -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections > >>>>> else > >>>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 > >>>>> endif > >>>>> > >>>>> Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Bin > >>>> > >>>> Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am > >>>> not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). > >>> > >>> I can not reproduce the sandbox breakage (and travis doesn't seem to either, otherwise it would be broken for everyone, no?). Can you give me some guidelines on how to reproduce the failures for you and I'll just fix it? > >> > >> I would like to revert the sandbox changes at least. I don't want to > >> enable -ffunction-sections, for example. > > > > Could you please explain why? In general I always thought the sandbox > > target was meant as debugging aid which allows you to find and debug > > bugs more easily. > > > > I would assume that chances for breakage are higher with function and > > data sections, because the linker could remove code it considers dead? > > So for a debugging target, I would think it makes sense to have it > > enabled rather than disabled. > > Yes I think removing dead could could cause problems. But so could not > garbage-collecting sections, so it is not a great argument. Sandbox is > targeted at building as much code as possible. Ideally every piece of > non-arch-specific code should be built with sandbox. I feel like this is the argument we had about enabling gc on other platforms. gc'ing dead code cannot cause problems that aren't real bugs. In fact, if we build something and it results in dead code that we don't expect to be dead that is a problem. We have everything else doing this collection so I think we do want sandbox to match. > Maybe I am being conservative, but I see no reason to enable it for > sandbox. I'll try to think of some better reasons and reply if I can. > I also feel that it slipped in under the radar with no review. This is something I want to be sensitive to. If you really want this change to go in for v2018.11, OK, it's your arch. But I really think we should move sandbox in this direction for consistency with all the hardware platforms. -- Tom
Hi Tom, On 21 August 2018 at 17:11, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 04:29:49PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >> On 21 August 2018 at 13:26, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 21.08.18 19:30, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> >> >> On 20 August 2018 at 06:23, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On 08/17/2018 02:49 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi, >> >>>> >> >>>> On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Alex, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Alex, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may >> >>>>>>>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, >> >>>>>>>> constants or strings. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits >> >>>>>>>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other >> >>>>>>>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and >> >>>>>>>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are >> >>>>>>>> in a section that starts with ".text". >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not >> >>>>>>>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces >> >>>>>>>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata >> >>>>>>>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time >> >>>>>>>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> >> >>>>>>>> --- >> >>>>>>>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- >> >>>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >> >>>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >> >>>>>>>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >> >>>>>>>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- >> >>>>>>>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ >> >>>>>>>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- >> >>>>>>>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- >> >>>>>>>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- >> >>>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- >> >>>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >> >>>>>>>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >> >>>>>>>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- >> >>>>>>>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound >> >>>>>>> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >> >>>>>>> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git >> >>>>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> >>>>>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> >> >>>>>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. >> >>>>>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" >> >>>>>>> and "show warranty" for details. >> >>>>>>> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". >> >>>>>>> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. >> >>>>>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see: >> >>>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. >> >>>>>>> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: >> >>>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. >> >>>>>>> For help, type "help". >> >>>>>>> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... >> >>>>>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. >> >>>>>>> (gdb) r >> >>>>>>> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >> >>>>>>> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] >> >>>>>>> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >> >>>>>>> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () >> >>>>>>> (gdb) up >> >>>>>>> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () >> >>>>>>> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 >> >>>>>>> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); >> >>>>>>> (gdb) print fname >> >>>>>>> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" >> >>>>>>> (gdb) q >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to >> >>>>>>> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that >> >>>>>>> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate >> >>>>>>> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Alex >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer >> >>>>> boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> If I do: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk >> >>>>> index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 >> >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk >> >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk >> >>>>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif >> >>>>> ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) >> >>>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 >> >>>>> # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further >> >>>>> -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections >> >>>>> else >> >>>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 >> >>>>> endif >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Regards, >> >>>>> Bin >> >>>> >> >>>> Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am >> >>>> not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). >> >>> >> >>> I can not reproduce the sandbox breakage (and travis doesn't seem to either, otherwise it would be broken for everyone, no?). Can you give me some guidelines on how to reproduce the failures for you and I'll just fix it? >> >> >> >> I would like to revert the sandbox changes at least. I don't want to >> >> enable -ffunction-sections, for example. >> > >> > Could you please explain why? In general I always thought the sandbox >> > target was meant as debugging aid which allows you to find and debug >> > bugs more easily. >> > >> > I would assume that chances for breakage are higher with function and >> > data sections, because the linker could remove code it considers dead? >> > So for a debugging target, I would think it makes sense to have it >> > enabled rather than disabled. >> >> Yes I think removing dead could could cause problems. But so could not >> garbage-collecting sections, so it is not a great argument. Sandbox is >> targeted at building as much code as possible. Ideally every piece of >> non-arch-specific code should be built with sandbox. > > I feel like this is the argument we had about enabling gc on other > platforms. gc'ing dead code cannot cause problems that aren't real > bugs. In fact, if we build something and it results in dead code that > we don't expect to be dead that is a problem. We have everything else > doing this collection so I think we do want sandbox to match. Fair enough, this is the consistency argument that Alex made also. I do understand that. Sandbox does potentially have a wider toolchain target, since it uses whatever is installed on the machine, and apparently runs on non-Linux devices. I suppose toolchains that people use handle this reliably now. > >> Maybe I am being conservative, but I see no reason to enable it for >> sandbox. I'll try to think of some better reasons and reply if I can. >> I also feel that it slipped in under the radar with no review. > > This is something I want to be sensitive to. If you really want this > change to go in for v2018.11, OK, it's your arch. But I really think we > should move sandbox in this direction for consistency with all the > hardware platforms. At the least I would like a revert followed by a patch to change sandbox over. The commit that changed this is titled: efi_loader: Rename sections to allow for implicit data It does not have a sandbox: tag, nor does it mention the compiler flag changes. No one would guess that this major change is happening. It broke x86 and I am not yet confident that sandbox still functions correctly. I would be happier if the second patch went in for the next release, but if we really are not seeing problems, then OK. Regards, Simon
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 04:45:29AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 21 August 2018 at 17:11, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 04:29:49PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > >> Hi Alex, > >> > >> On 21 August 2018 at 13:26, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On 21.08.18 19:30, Simon Glass wrote: > >> >> Hi Alex, > >> >> > >> >> On 20 August 2018 at 06:23, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> On 08/17/2018 02:49 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Hi, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Hi Alex, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Hi Alex, > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may > >> >>>>>>>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, > >> >>>>>>>> constants or strings. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits > >> >>>>>>>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other > >> >>>>>>>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and > >> >>>>>>>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are > >> >>>>>>>> in a section that starts with ".text". > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not > >> >>>>>>>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces > >> >>>>>>>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata > >> >>>>>>>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time > >> >>>>>>>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> > >> >>>>>>>> --- > >> >>>>>>>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- > >> >>>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- > >> >>>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > >> >>>>>>>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > >> >>>>>>>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- > >> >>>>>>>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ > >> >>>>>>>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- > >> >>>>>>>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- > >> >>>>>>>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- > >> >>>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- > >> >>>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- > >> >>>>>>>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > >> >>>>>>>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- > >> >>>>>>>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound > >> >>>>>>> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D > >> >>>>>>> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git > >> >>>>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > >> >>>>>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> > >> >>>>>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. > >> >>>>>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" > >> >>>>>>> and "show warranty" for details. > >> >>>>>>> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". > >> >>>>>>> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. > >> >>>>>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see: > >> >>>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. > >> >>>>>>> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: > >> >>>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. > >> >>>>>>> For help, type "help". > >> >>>>>>> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... > >> >>>>>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. > >> >>>>>>> (gdb) r > >> >>>>>>> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D > >> >>>>>>> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] > >> >>>>>>> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > >> >>>>>>> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () > >> >>>>>>> (gdb) up > >> >>>>>>> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () > >> >>>>>>> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 > >> >>>>>>> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); > >> >>>>>>> (gdb) print fname > >> >>>>>>> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" > >> >>>>>>> (gdb) q > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to > >> >>>>>>> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that > >> >>>>>>> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate > >> >>>>>>> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Alex > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer > >> >>>>> boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> If I do: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk > >> >>>>> index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 > >> >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk > >> >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk > >> >>>>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif > >> >>>>> ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) > >> >>>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 > >> >>>>> # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further > >> >>>>> -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections > >> >>>>> else > >> >>>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 > >> >>>>> endif > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Regards, > >> >>>>> Bin > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am > >> >>>> not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). > >> >>> > >> >>> I can not reproduce the sandbox breakage (and travis doesn't seem to either, otherwise it would be broken for everyone, no?). Can you give me some guidelines on how to reproduce the failures for you and I'll just fix it? > >> >> > >> >> I would like to revert the sandbox changes at least. I don't want to > >> >> enable -ffunction-sections, for example. > >> > > >> > Could you please explain why? In general I always thought the sandbox > >> > target was meant as debugging aid which allows you to find and debug > >> > bugs more easily. > >> > > >> > I would assume that chances for breakage are higher with function and > >> > data sections, because the linker could remove code it considers dead? > >> > So for a debugging target, I would think it makes sense to have it > >> > enabled rather than disabled. > >> > >> Yes I think removing dead could could cause problems. But so could not > >> garbage-collecting sections, so it is not a great argument. Sandbox is > >> targeted at building as much code as possible. Ideally every piece of > >> non-arch-specific code should be built with sandbox. > > > > I feel like this is the argument we had about enabling gc on other > > platforms. gc'ing dead code cannot cause problems that aren't real > > bugs. In fact, if we build something and it results in dead code that > > we don't expect to be dead that is a problem. We have everything else > > doing this collection so I think we do want sandbox to match. > > Fair enough, this is the consistency argument that Alex made also. I > do understand that. Sandbox does potentially have a wider toolchain > target, since it uses whatever is installed on the machine, and > apparently runs on non-Linux devices. I suppose toolchains that people > use handle this reliably now. Yes, this is something that toolchains get right and have been getting right for a long while now. Honestly, I didn't realize that sandbox wasn't doing this already or I would have brought it up. > >> Maybe I am being conservative, but I see no reason to enable it for > >> sandbox. I'll try to think of some better reasons and reply if I can. > >> I also feel that it slipped in under the radar with no review. > > > > This is something I want to be sensitive to. If you really want this > > change to go in for v2018.11, OK, it's your arch. But I really think we > > should move sandbox in this direction for consistency with all the > > hardware platforms. > > At the least I would like a revert followed by a patch to change > sandbox over. The commit that changed this is titled: > > efi_loader: Rename sections to allow for implicit data > > It does not have a sandbox: tag, nor does it mention the compiler flag > changes. No one would guess that this major change is happening. It > broke x86 and I am not yet confident that sandbox still functions > correctly. > > I would be happier if the second patch went in for the next release, > but if we really are not seeing problems, then OK. OK, now I'm trying to see what we need to do next. Regardless of Alex's current EFI PR, we have 7e21fbca26d1 ("efi_loader: Rename sections to allow for implicit data") in master. Looking at the PR, I see that it does turn on -fdata-sections on x86, and that Bin reviewed/tested it. So I'm going to push the PR there shortly. If, for sandbox you want to backout --gc-sections now (the commit message does spell out that we need -ffunction/data-sections and what for) and re-introduce that for the next release please post the patches and I'll grab the backout one and apply it (or post it then PR it if you'd rather, that's fine too). Thanks all! -- Tom
Hi Tom. On 23 August 2018 at 07:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 04:45:29AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 21 August 2018 at 17:11, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 04:29:49PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> >> >> On 21 August 2018 at 13:26, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On 21.08.18 19:30, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> >> >> >> >> On 20 August 2018 at 06:23, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 08/17/2018 02:49 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Hi, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On 9 August 2018 at 23:45, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Hi Alex, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Am 07.08.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>: >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Hi Alex, >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 23:48, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may >> >> >>>>>>>> be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, >> >> >>>>>>>> constants or strings. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits >> >> >>>>>>>> them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other >> >> >>>>>>>> efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and >> >> >>>>>>>> -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are >> >> >>>>>>>> in a section that starts with ".text". >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not >> >> >>>>>>>> interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces >> >> >>>>>>>> us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata >> >> >>>>>>>> sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time >> >> >>>>>>>> to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> >> >> >>>>>>>> --- >> >> >>>>>>>> arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- >> >> >>>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >> >> >>>>>>>> arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >> >> >>>>>>>> arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >> >> >>>>>>>> arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- >> >> >>>>>>>> arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ >> >> >>>>>>>> arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- >> >> >>>>>>>> arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- >> >> >>>>>>>> arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- >> >> >>>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- >> >> >>>>>>>> board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- >> >> >>>>>>>> board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >> >> >>>>>>>> include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- >> >> >>>>>>>> 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> I missed this at the time, probably thinking the subject made it sound >> >> >>>>>>> innocuous. There is no 'sandbox:' tag. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> This seems to break sandbox in a pretty strange way: >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> gdb --args /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >> >> >>>>>>> GNU gdb (Debian 7.12-6) 7.12.0.20161007-git >> >> >>>>>>> Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> >> >>>>>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> >> >> >>>>>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. >> >> >>>>>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" >> >> >>>>>>> and "show warranty" for details. >> >> >>>>>>> This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu". >> >> >>>>>>> Type "show configuration" for configuration details. >> >> >>>>>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see: >> >> >>>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>. >> >> >>>>>>> Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at: >> >> >>>>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/documentation/>. >> >> >>>>>>> For help, type "help". >> >> >>>>>>> Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word"... >> >> >>>>>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot...done. >> >> >>>>>>> (gdb) r >> >> >>>>>>> Starting program: /tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot -D >> >> >>>>>>> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] >> >> >>>>>>> Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >> >> >>>>>>> 0x0000555555571520 in open@plt () >> >> >>>>>>> (gdb) up >> >> >>>>>>> #1 0x0000555555571e9a in sandbox_read_fdt_from_file () >> >> >>>>>>> at /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c:264 >> >> >>>>>>> 264 fd = os_open(fname, OS_O_RDONLY); >> >> >>>>>>> (gdb) print fname >> >> >>>>>>> $1 = 0x7ffff7ff0000 "/tmp/crosfw/sandbox/u-boot.dtb" >> >> >>>>>>> (gdb) q >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Also the commit message suggests that this patch changes sandbox to >> >> >>>>>>> use --gc-sections, which is not obvious from the subject. I think that >> >> >>>>>>> should be a separate commit and in fact it should really be separate >> >> >>>>>>> commits for each arch, I think. That might help people notice it... >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> I only noticed now since the EFI pull request has landed. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Can you try my bss patch really quick? Maybe we're just overwriting gd. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Alex >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> This patch breaks efi-x86_app_defconfig. The EFI application no longer >> >> >>>>> boots. I was testing on top of u-boot/master. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> If I do: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk >> >> >>>>> index 586e11a..fc119ec 100644 >> >> >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk >> >> >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk >> >> >>>>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ endif >> >> >>>>> ifeq ($(IS_32BIT),y) >> >> >>>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -march=i386 -m32 >> >> >>>>> # TODO: These break on x86_64; need to debug further >> >> >>>>> -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fdata-sections >> >> >>>>> else >> >> >>>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 >> >> >>>>> endif >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Then it boots again. Can you please take a look? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Regards, >> >> >>>>> Bin >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Please can we revert the offending patch quickly for the release? I am >> >> >>>> not comfortable with the sandbox changes either (data-sections, etc.). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I can not reproduce the sandbox breakage (and travis doesn't seem to either, otherwise it would be broken for everyone, no?). Can you give me some guidelines on how to reproduce the failures for you and I'll just fix it? >> >> >> >> >> >> I would like to revert the sandbox changes at least. I don't want to >> >> >> enable -ffunction-sections, for example. >> >> > >> >> > Could you please explain why? In general I always thought the sandbox >> >> > target was meant as debugging aid which allows you to find and debug >> >> > bugs more easily. >> >> > >> >> > I would assume that chances for breakage are higher with function and >> >> > data sections, because the linker could remove code it considers dead? >> >> > So for a debugging target, I would think it makes sense to have it >> >> > enabled rather than disabled. >> >> >> >> Yes I think removing dead could could cause problems. But so could not >> >> garbage-collecting sections, so it is not a great argument. Sandbox is >> >> targeted at building as much code as possible. Ideally every piece of >> >> non-arch-specific code should be built with sandbox. >> > >> > I feel like this is the argument we had about enabling gc on other >> > platforms. gc'ing dead code cannot cause problems that aren't real >> > bugs. In fact, if we build something and it results in dead code that >> > we don't expect to be dead that is a problem. We have everything else >> > doing this collection so I think we do want sandbox to match. >> >> Fair enough, this is the consistency argument that Alex made also. I >> do understand that. Sandbox does potentially have a wider toolchain >> target, since it uses whatever is installed on the machine, and >> apparently runs on non-Linux devices. I suppose toolchains that people >> use handle this reliably now. > > Yes, this is something that toolchains get right and have been getting > right for a long while now. Honestly, I didn't realize that sandbox > wasn't doing this already or I would have brought it up. > >> >> Maybe I am being conservative, but I see no reason to enable it for >> >> sandbox. I'll try to think of some better reasons and reply if I can. >> >> I also feel that it slipped in under the radar with no review. >> > >> > This is something I want to be sensitive to. If you really want this >> > change to go in for v2018.11, OK, it's your arch. But I really think we >> > should move sandbox in this direction for consistency with all the >> > hardware platforms. >> >> At the least I would like a revert followed by a patch to change >> sandbox over. The commit that changed this is titled: >> >> efi_loader: Rename sections to allow for implicit data >> >> It does not have a sandbox: tag, nor does it mention the compiler flag >> changes. No one would guess that this major change is happening. It >> broke x86 and I am not yet confident that sandbox still functions >> correctly. >> >> I would be happier if the second patch went in for the next release, >> but if we really are not seeing problems, then OK. > > OK, now I'm trying to see what we need to do next. Regardless of Alex's > current EFI PR, we have 7e21fbca26d1 ("efi_loader: Rename sections to > allow for implicit data") in master. Looking at the PR, I see that it > does turn on -fdata-sections on x86, and that Bin reviewed/tested it. > So I'm going to push the PR there shortly. > > If, for sandbox you want to backout --gc-sections now (the commit > message does spell out that we need -ffunction/data-sections and what > for) and re-introduce that for the next release please post the patches > and I'll grab the backout one and apply it (or post it then PR it if > you'd rather, that's fine too). I'd like to back out all of the compilel/link flag changes: Here is my patch: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/954875/ Then I would like to get the sandbox EFI stuff reviewed by Alex, and get that applied when the merge window opens. I can bring it in via sandbox but I do want Alex to look at it. It has been waiting for two releases and I want to avoid any more barriers to this work. Herinrich's testing work is excellent, but having sandbox able to actually run apps is a good step forward I think. Regards, Simon
Am 23.08.2018 um 18:31 schrieb Simon Glass: > On 23 August 2018 at 07:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote: >> OK, now I'm trying to see what we need to do next. Regardless of Alex's >> current EFI PR, we have 7e21fbca26d1 ("efi_loader: Rename sections to >> allow for implicit data") in master. Looking at the PR, I see that it >> does turn on -fdata-sections on x86, and that Bin reviewed/tested it. >> So I'm going to push the PR there shortly. >> >> If, for sandbox you want to backout --gc-sections now (the commit >> message does spell out that we need -ffunction/data-sections and what >> for) and re-introduce that for the next release please post the patches >> and I'll grab the backout one and apply it (or post it then PR it if >> you'd rather, that's fine too). > > I'd like to back out all of the compilel/link flag changes: > > Here is my patch: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/954875/ If you go down that path, please align the subject of that commit with what it does, e.g., s/Revert/Partially revert/. Otherwise it is terribly confusing for users that don't care about sandbox. Regards, Andreas
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 06:41:56PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 23.08.2018 um 18:31 schrieb Simon Glass: > > On 23 August 2018 at 07:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote: > >> OK, now I'm trying to see what we need to do next. Regardless of Alex's > >> current EFI PR, we have 7e21fbca26d1 ("efi_loader: Rename sections to > >> allow for implicit data") in master. Looking at the PR, I see that it > >> does turn on -fdata-sections on x86, and that Bin reviewed/tested it. > >> So I'm going to push the PR there shortly. > >> > >> If, for sandbox you want to backout --gc-sections now (the commit > >> message does spell out that we need -ffunction/data-sections and what > >> for) and re-introduce that for the next release please post the patches > >> and I'll grab the backout one and apply it (or post it then PR it if > >> you'd rather, that's fine too). > > > > I'd like to back out all of the compilel/link flag changes: > > > > Here is my patch: > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/954875/ > > If you go down that path, please align the subject of that commit with > what it does, e.g., s/Revert/Partially revert/. Otherwise it is terribly > confusing for users that don't care about sandbox. With a slight subject reword, should I grab this patch now then? -- Tom
Hi Tom, On 23 August 2018 at 11:55, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 06:41:56PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 23.08.2018 um 18:31 schrieb Simon Glass: >> > On 23 August 2018 at 07:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote: >> >> OK, now I'm trying to see what we need to do next. Regardless of Alex's >> >> current EFI PR, we have 7e21fbca26d1 ("efi_loader: Rename sections to >> >> allow for implicit data") in master. Looking at the PR, I see that it >> >> does turn on -fdata-sections on x86, and that Bin reviewed/tested it. >> >> So I'm going to push the PR there shortly. >> >> >> >> If, for sandbox you want to backout --gc-sections now (the commit >> >> message does spell out that we need -ffunction/data-sections and what >> >> for) and re-introduce that for the next release please post the patches >> >> and I'll grab the backout one and apply it (or post it then PR it if >> >> you'd rather, that's fine too). >> > >> > I'd like to back out all of the compilel/link flag changes: >> > >> > Here is my patch: >> > >> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/954875/ >> >> If you go down that path, please align the subject of that commit with >> what it does, e.g., s/Revert/Partially revert/. Otherwise it is terribly >> confusing for users that don't care about sandbox. Yes I agree, sorry. I did a full revert and then changed it because I figured the only real problem I had was with sandbox. > > With a slight subject reword, should I grab this patch now then? That's fine with me. Regards, Simon
diff --git a/arch/arm/config.mk b/arch/arm/config.mk index efafc69d1b..f25603109e 100644 --- a/arch/arm/config.mk +++ b/arch/arm/config.mk @@ -134,11 +134,11 @@ endif ifdef CONFIG_ARM64 OBJCOPYFLAGS += -j .text -j .secure_text -j .secure_data -j .rodata -j .data \ -j .u_boot_list -j .rela.dyn -j .got -j .got.plt \ - -j .binman_sym_table + -j .binman_sym_table -j .text_rest else OBJCOPYFLAGS += -j .text -j .secure_text -j .secure_data -j .rodata -j .hash \ -j .data -j .got -j .got.plt -j .u_boot_list -j .rel.dyn \ - -j .binman_sym_table + -j .binman_sym_table -j .text_rest endif # if a dtb section exists we always have to include it diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds index eb926b3c14..53de80f745 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds @@ -25,6 +25,19 @@ SECTIONS { *(.__image_copy_start) CPUDIR/start.o (.text*) + } + + /* This needs to come before *(.text*) */ + .efi_runtime : { + __efi_runtime_start = .; + *(.text.efi_runtime*) + *(.rodata.efi_runtime*) + *(.data.efi_runtime*) + __efi_runtime_stop = .; + } + + .text_rest : + { *(.text*) } @@ -98,17 +111,10 @@ SECTIONS . = ALIGN(8); - .efi_runtime : { - __efi_runtime_start = .; - *(efi_runtime_text) - *(efi_runtime_data) - __efi_runtime_stop = .; - } - .efi_runtime_rel : { __efi_runtime_rel_start = .; - *(.relaefi_runtime_text) - *(.relaefi_runtime_data) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime.*) __efi_runtime_rel_stop = .; } diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds index 4157374d21..834dc99554 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds @@ -43,6 +43,25 @@ SECTIONS *(.__image_copy_start) *(.vectors) CPUDIR/start.o (.text*) + } + + /* This needs to come before *(.text*) */ + .__efi_runtime_start : { + *(.__efi_runtime_start) + } + + .efi_runtime : { + *(.text.efi_runtime*) + *(.rodata.efi_runtime*) + *(.data.efi_runtime*) + } + + .__efi_runtime_stop : { + *(.__efi_runtime_stop) + } + + .text_rest : + { *(.text*) } @@ -136,27 +155,14 @@ SECTIONS . = ALIGN(4); - .__efi_runtime_start : { - *(.__efi_runtime_start) - } - - .efi_runtime : { - *(efi_runtime_text) - *(efi_runtime_data) - } - - .__efi_runtime_stop : { - *(.__efi_runtime_stop) - } - .efi_runtime_rel_start : { *(.__efi_runtime_rel_start) } .efi_runtime_rel : { - *(.relefi_runtime_text) - *(.relefi_runtime_data) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime.*) } .efi_runtime_rel_stop : diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds index ec9a0a0161..91c32e89e8 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds @@ -19,6 +19,25 @@ SECTIONS *(.__image_copy_start) *(.vectors) CPUDIR/start.o (.text*) + } + + /* This needs to come before *(.text*) */ + .__efi_runtime_start : { + *(.__efi_runtime_start) + } + + .efi_runtime : { + *(.text.efi_runtime*) + *(.rodata.efi_runtime*) + *(.data.efi_runtime*) + } + + .__efi_runtime_stop : { + *(.__efi_runtime_stop) + } + + .text_rest : + { *(.text*) } @@ -41,27 +60,14 @@ SECTIONS . = ALIGN(4); - .__efi_runtime_start : { - *(.__efi_runtime_start) - } - - .efi_runtime : { - *(efi_runtime_text) - *(efi_runtime_data) - } - - .__efi_runtime_stop : { - *(.__efi_runtime_stop) - } - .efi_runtime_rel_start : { *(.__efi_runtime_rel_start) } .efi_runtime_rel : { - *(.relefi_runtime_text) - *(.relefi_runtime_data) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime.*) } .efi_runtime_rel_stop : diff --git a/arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds b/arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds index 1589babf6c..3cc89746b1 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds @@ -12,7 +12,20 @@ SECTIONS .text : { arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/start.o (.text) - *(.text) + } + + /* This needs to come before *(.text*) */ + .efi_runtime : { + __efi_runtime_start = .; + *(.text.efi_runtime*) + *(.rodata.efi_runtime*) + *(.data.efi_runtime*) + __efi_runtime_stop = .; + } + + .text_rest : + { + *(.text*) } . = ALIGN(4); @@ -39,17 +52,10 @@ SECTIONS . = ALIGN(4); - .efi_runtime : { - __efi_runtime_start = .; - *(efi_runtime_text) - *(efi_runtime_data) - __efi_runtime_stop = .; - } - .efi_runtime_rel : { __efi_runtime_rel_start = .; - *(.relaefi_runtime_text) - *(.relaefi_runtime_data) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime.*) __efi_runtime_rel_stop = .; } diff --git a/arch/sandbox/config.mk b/arch/sandbox/config.mk index 2babcde881..5e7077bfe7 100644 --- a/arch/sandbox/config.mk +++ b/arch/sandbox/config.mk @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@ PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -D__SANDBOX__ -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -DCONFIG_ARCH_MAP_SYSMEM PLATFORM_LIBS += -lrt +LDFLAGS_FINAL += --gc-sections +PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections + # Define this to avoid linking with SDL, which requires SDL libraries # This can solve 'sdl-config: Command not found' errors ifneq ($(NO_SDL),) diff --git a/arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds b/arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds index 3a6cf55eb9..727bcc3598 100644 --- a/arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds @@ -24,8 +24,9 @@ SECTIONS } .efi_runtime : { - *(efi_runtime_text) - *(efi_runtime_data) + *(.text.efi_runtime*) + *(.rodata.efi_runtime*) + *(.data.efi_runtime*) } .__efi_runtime_stop : { @@ -38,8 +39,8 @@ SECTIONS } .efi_runtime_rel : { - *(.relefi_runtime_text) - *(.relefi_runtime_data) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime.*) } .efi_runtime_rel_stop : diff --git a/arch/x86/config.mk b/arch/x86/config.mk index 5f77f98e60..3759d466ad 100644 --- a/arch/x86/config.mk +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ else PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(if $(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD),,-fpic) -fno-common -m64 endif -PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -ffunction-sections -fvisibility=hidden +PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -fvisibility=hidden PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -Bsymbolic -Bsymbolic-functions PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -m $(if $(IS_32BIT),elf_i386,elf_x86_64) diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds b/arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds index f0719368ba..fed006deb7 100644 --- a/arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds @@ -17,6 +17,21 @@ SECTIONS . = CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE; /* Location of bootcode in flash */ __text_start = .; + + .__efi_runtime_start : { + *(.__efi_runtime_start) + } + + .efi_runtime : { + *(.text.efi_runtime*) + *(.rodata.efi_runtime*) + *(.data.efi_runtime*) + } + + .__efi_runtime_stop : { + *(.__efi_runtime_stop) + } + .text : { *(.text*); } . = ALIGN(4); @@ -43,27 +58,14 @@ SECTIONS . = ALIGN(4); - .__efi_runtime_start : { - *(.__efi_runtime_start) - } - - .efi_runtime : { - *(efi_runtime_text) - *(efi_runtime_data) - } - - .__efi_runtime_stop : { - *(.__efi_runtime_stop) - } - .efi_runtime_rel_start : { *(.__efi_runtime_rel_start) } .efi_runtime_rel : { - *(.relefi_runtime_text) - *(.relefi_runtime_data) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime.*) } .efi_runtime_rel_stop : diff --git a/board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds b/board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds index dc3f718b05..fc1bba8cf0 100644 --- a/board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds +++ b/board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds @@ -20,6 +20,19 @@ SECTIONS *(.__image_copy_start) board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/head.o (.text*) CPUDIR/start.o (.text*) + } + + /* This needs to come before *(.text*) */ + .efi_runtime : { + __efi_runtime_start = .; + *(.text.efi_runtime*) + *(.rodata.efi_runtime*) + *(.data.efi_runtime*) + __efi_runtime_stop = .; + } + + .text_rest : + { *(.text*) } @@ -51,8 +64,8 @@ SECTIONS .efi_runtime_rel : { __efi_runtime_rel_start = .; - *(.relaefi_runtime_text) - *(.relaefi_runtime_data) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime.*) __efi_runtime_rel_stop = .; } diff --git a/board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds b/board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds index bcf5738d38..dcf8256cec 100644 --- a/board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds +++ b/board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds @@ -20,6 +20,19 @@ SECTIONS *(.__image_copy_start) board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/head.o (.text*) CPUDIR/start.o (.text*) + } + + /* This needs to come before *(.text*) */ + .efi_runtime : { + __efi_runtime_start = .; + *(.text.efi_runtime*) + *(.rodata.efi_runtime*) + *(.data.efi_runtime*) + __efi_runtime_stop = .; + } + + .text_rest : + { *(.text*) } @@ -42,17 +55,10 @@ SECTIONS . = ALIGN(8); - .efi_runtime : { - __efi_runtime_start = .; - *(efi_runtime_text) - *(efi_runtime_data) - __efi_runtime_stop = .; - } - .efi_runtime_rel : { __efi_runtime_rel_start = .; - *(.relaefi_runtime_text) - *(.relaefi_runtime_data) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime.*) __efi_runtime_rel_stop = .; } diff --git a/board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds b/board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds index a56cc8216b..03c1d5f73b 100644 --- a/board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds +++ b/board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds @@ -37,6 +37,25 @@ SECTIONS *(.vectors) CPUDIR/start.o (.text*) board/ti/am335x/built-in.o (.text*) + } + + /* This needs to come before *(.text*) */ + .__efi_runtime_start : { + *(.__efi_runtime_start) + } + + .efi_runtime : { + *(.text.efi_runtime*) + *(.rodata.efi_runtime*) + *(.data.efi_runtime*) + } + + .__efi_runtime_stop : { + *(.__efi_runtime_stop) + } + + .text_rest : + { *(.text*) } @@ -59,27 +78,14 @@ SECTIONS . = ALIGN(4); - .__efi_runtime_start : { - *(.__efi_runtime_start) - } - - .efi_runtime : { - *(efi_runtime_text) - *(efi_runtime_data) - } - - .__efi_runtime_stop : { - *(.__efi_runtime_stop) - } - .efi_runtime_rel_start : { *(.__efi_runtime_rel_start) } .efi_runtime_rel : { - *(.relefi_runtime_text) - *(.relefi_runtime_data) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime) + *(.rel*.efi_runtime.*) } .efi_runtime_rel_stop : diff --git a/include/efi_loader.h b/include/efi_loader.h index c66252a7dd..d6e1f50e22 100644 --- a/include/efi_loader.h +++ b/include/efi_loader.h @@ -398,8 +398,8 @@ static inline int guidcmp(const efi_guid_t *g1, const efi_guid_t *g2) * Use these to indicate that your code / data should go into the EFI runtime * section and thus still be available when the OS is running */ -#define __efi_runtime_data __attribute__ ((section ("efi_runtime_data"))) -#define __efi_runtime __attribute__ ((section ("efi_runtime_text"))) +#define __efi_runtime_data __attribute__ ((section (".data.efi_runtime"))) +#define __efi_runtime __attribute__ ((section (".text.efi_runtime"))) /* Call this with mmio_ptr as the _pointer_ to a pointer to an MMIO region * to make it available at runtime */
Some times gcc may generate data that is then used within code that may be part of an efi runtime section. That data could be jump tables, constants or strings. In order to make sure we catch these, we need to ensure that gcc emits them into a section that we can relocate together with all the other efi runtime bits. This only works if the -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections flags are passed and the efi runtime functions are in a section that starts with ".text". Up to now we had all efi runtime bits in sections that did not interfere with the normal section naming scheme, but this forces us to do so. Hence we need to move the efi_loader text/data/rodata sections before the global *(.text*) catch-all section. With this patch in place, we should hopefully have an easier time to extend the efi runtime functionality in the future. Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> --- arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- arch/riscv/cpu/ax25/u-boot.lds | 26 +++++++++++++--------- arch/sandbox/config.mk | 3 +++ arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 9 ++++---- arch/x86/config.mk | 2 +- arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 32 ++++++++++++++------------- board/qualcomm/dragonboard410c/u-boot.lds | 17 +++++++++++++-- board/qualcomm/dragonboard820c/u-boot.lds | 24 +++++++++++++-------- board/ti/am335x/u-boot.lds | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------- include/efi_loader.h | 4 ++-- 13 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-)