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