linux-kernel - Re: [crash] Re: Latest brk patchset

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:48:44 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [crash] Re: Latest brk patchset

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> last entry seemed to be related to the brk patches:
>
>   
>> WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x6a288e): Section mismatch in reference from
>> the function dmi_alloc() to the function .init.text:extend_brk()
>> The function dmi_alloc() references
>> the function __init extend_brk().
>> This is often because dmi_alloc lacks a __init annotation or the
>> annotation of extend_brk is wrong.
>>     
>
> most of them are not.
>   

Hm, dmi_alloc() is a static inline which simply calls extend_brk(), so 
it should be a non-issue.  Does this fix it?

    J

>From 382f0ea466d1b831f87b5dc84d418c2f5b3881c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:46:09 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] x86/dmi: fix dmi_alloc() section mismatches

Impact: section mismatch fix

Ingo reports these warnings:
> WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x6a288e): Section mismatch in reference from
> the function dmi_alloc() to the function .init.text:extend_brk()
> The function dmi_alloc() references
> the function __init extend_brk().
> This is often because dmi_alloc lacks a __init annotation or the
> annotation of extend_brk is wrong.

dmi_alloc() is a static inline, and so should be immune to this
kind of error.  But force it to be inlined and make it __init
anyway, just to be extra sure.

All of dmi_alloc()'s callers are already __init.

Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/dmi.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/dmi.h
index aa32f7e..fd8f9e2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/dmi.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/dmi.h
@@ -1,10 +1,13 @@
 #ifndef _ASM_X86_DMI_H
 #define _ASM_X86_DMI_H
 
+#include <linux/compiler.h>
+#include <linux/init.h>
+
 #include <asm/io.h>
 #include <asm/setup.h>
 
-static inline void *dmi_alloc(unsigned len)
+static __always_inline __init void *dmi_alloc(unsigned len)
 {
 	return extend_brk(len, sizeof(int));
 }


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/