On 23.01.2024 10:32, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 08:53:15AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 22.01.2024 18:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:21:47PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> I'm further curious why .text.__x86_indirect_thunk_* is left past the >>>> inserted alignment. While pretty unlikely, isn't it in principle possible >>>> for the thunks there to also need patching? Aren't we instead requiring >>>> then that assembly functions (and thunks) all be suitably aligned as well? >>> >>> Those are defined in assembly, so requires CONFIG_FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT >>> to also be applied to the function entry points in assembly files. >> >> I see. Yet the question then remains: Why is the alignment not inserted >> after them? Or will the insertion need to move later on (which would feel >> odd)? > > The thunk sections will currently be consumed by *(.text.*) when using > split sections. Looking at the assembly for them I think they are > suitable annotated to create the right symbols for livepatch tools to > pick. They won't however have the right alignment just yet, as I > expect that will get solved with your follow up patch to respect > CONFIG_FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT in assembly annotated functions also.
Not exactly, no. Those will first need converting from ENTRY() to the new annotations model. Which I certainly intend to get to. Jan
