| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 21:40:58 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com> CC: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: fix build with older binutils Jan Beulich wrote: > > Yeah, the placement of .init.start appears to be wrong - it should the > SMP/x86-64 case of the per-CPU segment, and it should also be the > one getting the :init attached. Hopefully that won't get us back to the > binutils problem I was originally encountering - what is the extra .init.start > section good for anyway? And why does __init_end continue to live > outside of any section (this sort of thing causes problems with > CONFIG_RELOCATABLE and older binutils afair, as such symbols get > marked absolute by the latter)? While this was the case (and a mistake) > for x86-64 prior to the merge, it was properly placed in a section for > ix86, and hence I'd view it as a regression there. > > Btw., why is .data.nosave being placed differently for 32- and 64-bit? > Probably for no good reason, but it might need additional fixes. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists