lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] vmlinux.lds.h: Keep .ctors.* with .ctors
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 09:53:39PM -0700, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 4:04 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > index 5430febd34be..b83c00c63997 100644
> > > --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> > > @@ -684,6 +684,7 @@
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS
> > > #define KERNEL_CTORS() . = ALIGN(8); \
> > > __ctors_start = .; \
> > > + KEEP(*(SORT(.ctors.*))) \
> > > KEEP(*(.ctors)) \
> > > KEEP(*(SORT(.init_array.*))) \
> > > KEEP(*(.init_array)) \
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
>
> I think it would be great to figure out why these .ctors.* .dtors.* are generated.

I haven't had the time to investigate. This patch keeps sfr's builds
from regressing, so we need at least this first.

> ~GCC 4.7 switched to default to .init_array/.fini_array if libc
> supports it. I have some refactoring in this area of Clang as well
> (e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D71393)
>
> And I am not sure SORT(.init_array.*) or SORT(.ctors.*) will work. The
> correct construct is SORT_BY_INIT_PRIORITY(.init_array.*)

The kernel doesn't seem to use the init_priority attribute at all. Are
you saying the cause of the .ctors.* names are a result of some internal
use of init_priority by the compiler here?

--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-21 22:10    [W:0.115 / U:6.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site