lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH V2 1/3] riscv: Fixup static_obj() fail
    On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:19 AM Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> wrote:
    >
    > How about this, revert the commit and don't free INIT_DATA_SECTION. I
    > think the solution is safe enough, but wast a little memory.
    >
    > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
    > index f3586e3..34d00d9 100644
    > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
    > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
    > @@ -22,13 +22,11 @@ SECTIONS
    > /* Beginning of code and text segment */
    > . = LOAD_OFFSET;
    > _start = .;
    > - _stext = .;
    > HEAD_TEXT_SECTION
    > . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE);
    >
    > __init_begin = .;
    > INIT_TEXT_SECTION(PAGE_SIZE)
    > - INIT_DATA_SECTION(16)
    > . = ALIGN(8);
    > __soc_early_init_table : {
    > __soc_early_init_table_start = .;
    > @@ -55,6 +53,7 @@ SECTIONS
    > . = ALIGN(SECTION_ALIGN);
    > .text : {
    > _text = .;
    > + _stext = .;
    > TEXT_TEXT
    > SCHED_TEXT
    > CPUIDLE_TEXT
    > @@ -67,6 +66,8 @@ SECTIONS
    > _etext = .;
    > }
    >
    > + INIT_DATA_SECTION(16)
    > +

    I think you need to move EXIT_DATA as well. Currently, we have init
    data & text in one section.
    In general it is better idea to separate those similar to ARM64.
    Additionally, ARM64 applies different mapping for init data & text
    as the init data section is marked as non-executable[1]

    However, we don't modify any permission for any init sections. Should
    we do that as well ?

    [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9572869/

    > /* Start of data section */
    > _sdata = .;
    > RO_DATA(SECTION_ALIGN)
    >
    > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:36 PM Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
    > >
    > > On Sep 14 2020, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
    > >
    > > > How should we proceed to get that fixed in time for 5.9? For the older
    > > > branches where it has been backported (so far 5.7 and 5.8), should we
    > > > just get that commit reverted instead?
    > >
    > > Can this please be resolved ASAP?
    > >
    > > Andreas.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
    > > GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
    > > "And now for something completely different."
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Best Regards
    > Guo Ren
    >
    > ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > linux-riscv mailing list
    > linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
    > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv



    --
    Regards,
    Atish

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-10-05 21:14    [W:2.540 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site