lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [git pull] x86 updates
    On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 10:05:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >
    > * Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
    >
    > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 10:47:07AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Ingo, Thomas,
    > > > should we not do this?
    > > >
    > > > Otherwise, it seems we generate a section that isn't allocated?
    > > >
    > > > I think toolchain should add the right flags automatically for
    > > > sections that start with ".[ro]data" and ".text", but not for the
    > > > kernel-specific ".init.*" sections.
    > >
    > > With a bit of help from the bin-utils people (Alan Modra) I recently
    > > discovered that the linker generate sections with different names when
    > > the flags differs, so fogetting "aw" casues the linekr to generate a
    > > section named .init.data.1 (or some other number). But I nevet got to
    > > investigate if ld does something magically with these autogenerated
    > > section names. But I added a check in modpost and it should warn about
    > > the code below.
    > >
    > > I would prefer the use of
    > > __CPUINITDATA
    > > __FINITDATA
    > >
    > > as defined in linux/init.h but otherwise - yes it should be fixed.
    > > With the use of __CPUINITDATA we can kill the ifdef too.
    >
    > ok, i've queued up your patch.
    >
    > btw., __CPUINITDATA/__FINITDATA is nice, except that the small patch
    > below is needed to make the fun complete ;-)
    >
    > or, we could use __FINIT all the time.

    I have no strong preference - I do not like the naming of
    __FINIT but maybe thats just me and I have no better name right now.

    >
    > btw., what's the practical consequence of getting these section flags
    > wrong - for example writable data can end up in executable section
    > accidentally and be marked readonly by RODATA? Or can anything more
    > serious happen? (they cannot get into any of the discarded sections, we
    > filter for them explicitly in the linker scripts)
    I have not investigated this. My attention were due to section mismatch
    warnings pointing to section names I could not find in the code.
    When I did an objdump of vmlinux the funny section names were gone
    so I expected ld had recognized them and merged them somehow - but I
    did not look closer as my focus was to get rid of them anyway.

    I also did a quick skimming of info ld - but no luck.

    Sam


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-05 22:19    [W:0.022 / U:1.484 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site