[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] ARM: xen: unexport HYPERVISOR_platform_op function




On 01/10/2019 15:33, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Julien,

Hi Mark,


On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 11:05:45AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
On 9/6/19 6:20 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 06/09/2019 17:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:55 PM Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 06/09/2019 16:39, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
HYPERVISOR_platform_op() is an inline function and should not
be exported. Since commit 15bfc2348d54 ("modpost: check for
static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions"), this causes a warning:

WARNING: "HYPERVISOR_platform_op" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

Remove the extraneous export.

Fixes: 15bfc2348d54 ("modpost: check for static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
Something is wonky.  That symbol is (/ really ought to be) in the
hypercall page and most definitely not inline.

Which tree is that changeset from?  I can't find the SHA.
This is from linux-next, I think from the kbuild tree.

Thanks.

Julien/Stefano: Why are any of these hypercalls out-of-line?  ARM
doesn't use the hypercall page, and there is no argument translation
(not even in arm32 as there are no 5-argument hypercalls declared).

I am not sure how the hypercall page makes things different. You still have
to store the arguments in the correct register so...


They'd surely be easier to implement with a few static inlines and some
common code, than to try and replicate the x86 side hypercall_page
interface ?

... I don't think they will be easier to implement with a few static
inlines. The implementation will likely end up to be similar to
arch/x86/asm/xen/hypercall.h.

Furthermore, one of the downside of per-arch static inline is it is more
difficult to ensure the prototype match for all the architectures. Although,
it might be possible to make them common by only requesting per-arch to
implement HYPERCALL_N(...).

So I think the code is better as it is.

While looking at the code, I also realized that the implementation of
HYPERCALL_dm_op might be incorrect for Arm32. Similarly do privcmd call, I
think dm_op call should enable user access as they will be used by
userspace.

We don't use dm_op on Arm so far, hence why I think this was unnoticed. I
will see if I can reproduce it and send a patch.

I'm seeing this when building arm64 defconfig v5.4-rc1:

| [mark@lakrids:~/src/linux]% usekorg 8.1.0  make ARCH=arm64 
CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux- -j56 -s
| arch/arm64/Makefile:62: CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT not defined or empty, the compat 
vDSO will not be built
| WARNING: "HYPERVISOR_platform_op" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
| WARNING: "HYPERVISOR_platform_op" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

I couldn't see a follow-up; do you have a patch for this?

The first e-mail of the thread should contain a patch to address the warning (see [1]). But it is still waiting on an Ack from Stefano so it can get merged.

Cheers,

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11135601/

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.