Hi Arnd,
I usually wait longer to bump threads for review, but we have a
holiday in the US so we're off tomorrow and Friday.
scripts/get_maintainer.pl recommend you for this patch.  Would you
take a look at it for us, please?

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:48 AM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulni...@google.com> wrote:
> Basically, consider .text.{hot|unlikely|unknown}.* part of .text, too.
> When compiling with profiling information (collected via PGO
> instrumentations or AutoFDO sampling), Clang will separate code into
> .text.hot, .text.unlikely, or .text.unknown sections based on profiling
> information. After D79600 (clang-11), these sections will have a
> trailing `.` suffix, ie.  .text.hot., .text.unlikely., .text.unknown..
> When using -ffunction-sections together with profiling infomation,
> either explicitly (FGKASLR) or implicitly (LTO), code may be placed in
> sections following the convention:
> .text.hot.<foo>, .text.unlikely.<bar>, .text.unknown.<baz>
> where <foo>, <bar>, and <baz> are functions.  (This produces one section
> per function; we generally try to merge these all back via linker script
> so that we don't have 50k sections).
> For the above cases, we need to teach our linker scripts that such
> sections might exist and that we'd explicitly like them grouped
> together, otherwise we can wind up with code outside of the
> _stext/_etext boundaries that might not be mapped properly for some
> architectures, resulting in boot failures.
> If the linker script is not told about possible input sections, then
> where the section is placed as output is a heuristic-laiden mess that's
> non-portable between linkers (ie. BFD and LLD), and has resulted in many
> hard to debug bugs.  Kees Cook is working on cleaning this up by adding
> --orphan-handling=warn linker flag used in ARCH=powerpc to additional
> architectures. In the case of linker scripts, borrowing from the Zen of
> Python: explicit is better than implicit.
> Also, ld.bfd's internal linker script considers .text.hot AND
> .text.hot.* to be part of .text, as well as .text.unlikely and
> .text.unlikely.*. I didn't see support for .text.unknown.*, and didn't
> see Clang producing such code in our kernel builds, but I see code in
> LLVM that can produce such section names if profiling information is
> missing. That may point to a larger issue with generating or collecting
> profiles, but I would much rather be safe and explicit than have to
> debug yet another issue related to orphan section placement.
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> Link: 
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=add44f8d5c5c05e08b11e033127a744d61c26aee
> Link: 
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=1de778ed23ce7492c523d5850c6c6dbb34152655
> Link: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79600
> Link: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1084760
> Reported-by: Jian Cai <jian...@google.com>
> Debugged-by: Luis Lozano <lloz...@google.com>
> Suggested-by: Fāng-ruì Sòng <mask...@google.com>
> Tested-by: Luis Lozano <lloz...@google.com>
> Tested-by: Manoj Gupta <manojgu...@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulni...@google.com>
> ---
> Changes V1 -> V2:
> * Add .text.unknown.*.  It's not strictly necessary for us yet, but I
>   really worry that it could become a problem for us. Either way, I'm
>   happy to drop for a V3, but I'm suggesting we not.
> * Beef up commit message.
> * Drop references to LLD; the LLVM change had nothing to do with LLD.
>   I've realized I have a Pavlovian-response to changes from Fāng-ruì
>   that I associate with LLD.  I'm seeking professional help for my
>   ailment. Forgive me.
> * Add link to now public CrOS bug.
>  include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h 
> b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> index d7c7c7f36c4a..245c1af4c057 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> @@ -560,7 +560,10 @@
>   */
>  #define TEXT_TEXT                                                      \
>                 ALIGN_FUNCTION();                                       \
> -               *(.text.hot TEXT_MAIN .text.fixup .text.unlikely)       \
> +               *(.text.hot .text.hot.*)                                \
> +               *(TEXT_MAIN .text.fixup)                                \
> +               *(.text.unlikely .text.unlikely.*)                      \
> +               *(.text.unknown .text.unknown.*)                        \
>                 NOINSTR_TEXT                                            \
>                 *(.text..refcount)                                      \
>                 *(.ref.text)                                            \
> --

~Nick Desaulniers

Reply via email to