[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] pc-bios/s390-ccw: Don't use __bss_start with the "lar
From: |
Claudio Imbrenda |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] pc-bios/s390-ccw: Don't use __bss_start with the "larl" instruction |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Jun 2023 13:25:53 +0200 |
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 13:12:26 +0200
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 29/06/2023 12.58, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:48:21 +0200
> > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> start.S currently cannot be compiled with Clang 16 and binutils 2.40:
> >>
> >> ld: start.o(.text+0x8): misaligned symbol `__bss_start' (0xc1e5) for
> >> relocation R_390_PC32DBL
> >>
> >> According to the built-in linker script of ld, the symbol __bss_start
> >> can actually point *before* the .bss section and does not need to have
> >> any alignment, so in certain situations (like when using the internal
> >> assembler of Clang), the __bss_start symbol can indeed be unaligned
> >> and thus it is not suitable for being used with the "larl" instruction
> >> that needs an address that is at least aligned to halfwords.
> >> The problem went unnoticed so far since binutils <= 2.39 did not
> >> check the alignment, but starting with binutils 2.40, such unaligned
> >> addresses are now refused.
> >>
> >> Fix it by loading the address indirectly instead.
> >
> > what are the advantages of this solution compared to your previous one
> > (i.e. align .bss) ?
>
> __bss_start is supposed to point to an address that is before all bss-like
> segments. There are also segments like .sbss and .bss.plt on other
> architectures, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216662#c11 .
> Seems like we don't have them on s390x yet, so currently my previous patch
> is fine, too. But in case there will ever be an extension to the s390x ABI
> that introduces such additional segments, we have to switch back to
> __bss_start again. So it sounds slightly more future-proof to me to keep
> __bss_start here, even if we need a slightly more complex startup code here
> now.
fair enough
Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
>
> Thomas
>
>
- [PATCH v3 0/7] pc-bios/s390-ccw: Fixes and improvements for start.S (and other files), Thomas Huth, 2023/06/29
- [PATCH v3 2/7] pc-bios/s390-ccw: Get rid of the the __u* types, Thomas Huth, 2023/06/29
- [PATCH v3 3/7] pc-bios/s390-ccw/Makefile: Use -z noexecstack to silence linker warning, Thomas Huth, 2023/06/29
- [PATCH v3 1/7] s390-ccw: Getting rid of ulong, Thomas Huth, 2023/06/29
- [PATCH v3 5/7] pc-bios/s390-ccw: Provide space for initial stack frame in start.S, Thomas Huth, 2023/06/29
- [PATCH v3 7/7] pc-bios/s390-ccw: Don't use __bss_start with the "larl" instruction, Thomas Huth, 2023/06/29
- [PATCH v3 4/7] pc-bios/s390-ccw: Fix indentation in start.S, Thomas Huth, 2023/06/29
- [PATCH v3 6/7] pc-bios/s390-ccw: Move the stack array into start.S, Thomas Huth, 2023/06/29