[OpenWrt-Devel] Any progress on R_ARM_THM_JUMP11 issues?
Jason A. Donenfeld
Jason at zx2c4.com
Wed Jun 17 17:02:16 EDT 2020
Hi ARM folks,
Rui emailed the OpenWRT list and me about an issue he found when
compiling WireGuard. He was compiling kernels with
CONFIG_THUMB2_AVOID_R_ARM_THM_JUMP11=n -- which I'm well aware the
Kconfig advices people not to do -- and got the dreaded "unknown
relocation 102" error when trying to load the module. I figured out
that I could "fix" it in the WireGuard code by either doing some extra
stuff after the tail call, so that the B becomes a BL, or by moving
the destination of the tail call a bit closer to the callsite, so that
THUMB2's jump distance is shorter and fits within the B's limitations,
thereby not needing the "JUMP11" relocation.
Obviously reordering code for this reason isn't going to fly with
upstream patches, nor would adding dummy code to avoid a tail call.
And there's already CONFIG_THUMB2_AVOID_R_ARM_THM_JUMP11=y which seems
like the right global solution for this.
But I am wondering: has anybody heard about toolchain progress toward
fixing this? Couldn't the compiler reorder functions itself more
intelligently? Or avoid emitting the B in the case that the jump will
be too far? Or does nobody care much about 32-bit ARM these days so
it's just fallen by the wayside and
CONFIG_THUMB2_AVOID_R_ARM_THM_JUMP11=y is the best we've got? Or
something else?
Jason
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason at zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:45:12PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > Looks like my explanation there wasn't 100% accurate, but it does seem
> > like the issue occurs when gcc sees a clear tail call that it can
> > optimize into a B instruction instead of a BL instruction.
> >
> > The below patch avoids that, and thus fixes your issue, using a pretty
> > bad trick that's not really suitable for being committed anywhere, but
> > it is perhaps leading us in the right direction:
> >
> > diff --git a/src/send.c b/src/send.c
> > index 828b086a..4bb6911f 100644
> > --- a/src/send.c
> > +++ b/src/send.c
> > @@ -221,6 +221,8 @@ static bool encrypt_packet(struct sk_buff *skb, struct noise_keypair *keypair,
> > simd_context);
> > }
> >
> > +volatile char dummy;
> > +
> > void wg_packet_send_keepalive(struct wg_peer *peer)
> > {
> > struct sk_buff *skb;
> > @@ -240,6 +242,7 @@ void wg_packet_send_keepalive(struct wg_peer *peer)
> > }
> >
> > wg_packet_send_staged_packets(peer);
> > + dummy = -1;
> > }
> >
> > static void wg_packet_create_data_done(struct sk_buff *first,
>
> A better fix with more explanation: it looks like the issue doesn't have
> to do with the multifile thing I pointed out before, but just that gcc
> sees it can optimize the tail call into a B instruction, which seems to
> have a ±2KB range, whereas BL has a ±4MB range. The solution is to just
> move the location of the function in that file to be closer to the
> destination of the tail call. I'm not a big fan of that and I'm slightly
> worried davem will nack it because it makes backporting harder for a
> fairly speculative gain (at least, I haven't yet taken measurements,
> though I suppose I could). There's also the question of - why are we
> doing goofy reordering things to the code to work around a toolchain
> bug? Shouldn't we fix the toolchain? So, I'll keep thinking...
>
> diff --git a/src/send.c b/src/send.c
> index 828b086a..f44aff8d 100644
> --- a/src/send.c
> +++ b/src/send.c
> @@ -221,27 +221,6 @@ static bool encrypt_packet(struct sk_buff *skb, struct noise_keypair *keypair,
> simd_context);
> }
>
> -void wg_packet_send_keepalive(struct wg_peer *peer)
> -{
> - struct sk_buff *skb;
> -
> - if (skb_queue_empty(&peer->staged_packet_queue)) {
> - skb = alloc_skb(DATA_PACKET_HEAD_ROOM + MESSAGE_MINIMUM_LENGTH,
> - GFP_ATOMIC);
> - if (unlikely(!skb))
> - return;
> - skb_reserve(skb, DATA_PACKET_HEAD_ROOM);
> - skb->dev = peer->device->dev;
> - PACKET_CB(skb)->mtu = skb->dev->mtu;
> - skb_queue_tail(&peer->staged_packet_queue, skb);
> - net_dbg_ratelimited("%s: Sending keepalive packet to peer %llu (%pISpfsc)\n",
> - peer->device->dev->name, peer->internal_id,
> - &peer->endpoint.addr);
> - }
> -
> - wg_packet_send_staged_packets(peer);
> -}
> -
> static void wg_packet_create_data_done(struct sk_buff *first,
> struct wg_peer *peer)
> {
> @@ -346,6 +325,27 @@ err:
> kfree_skb_list(first);
> }
>
> +void wg_packet_send_keepalive(struct wg_peer *peer)
> +{
> + struct sk_buff *skb;
> +
> + if (skb_queue_empty(&peer->staged_packet_queue)) {
> + skb = alloc_skb(DATA_PACKET_HEAD_ROOM + MESSAGE_MINIMUM_LENGTH,
> + GFP_ATOMIC);
> + if (unlikely(!skb))
> + return;
> + skb_reserve(skb, DATA_PACKET_HEAD_ROOM);
> + skb->dev = peer->device->dev;
> + PACKET_CB(skb)->mtu = skb->dev->mtu;
> + skb_queue_tail(&peer->staged_packet_queue, skb);
> + net_dbg_ratelimited("%s: Sending keepalive packet to peer %llu (%pISpfsc)\n",
> + peer->device->dev->name, peer->internal_id,
> + &peer->endpoint.addr);
> + }
> +
> + wg_packet_send_staged_packets(peer);
> +}
> +
> void wg_packet_purge_staged_packets(struct wg_peer *peer)
> {
> spin_lock_bh(&peer->staged_packet_queue.lock);
>
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
More information about the openwrt-devel
mailing list