linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.35-rc1, patch] fix cpu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 Jun 2010 21:49:48 +0100
From:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6.35-rc1, patch] fix cpu_chain section mismatch...

Hi Linus,

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>>
>> In 2.6.35-rc1, __cpu_notify access cpu_chain, which shouldn't be
>> marked __cpuinitdata (via section mismatch warning).
>
> Hmm. Does this section mismatch go away if you instead mark cpu_notify(),
> __cpu_notify() and cpu_notify_nofail as "inline"? Or alternatively, maybe
> they should all be marked as __ref?

Indeed the inline and __ref approaches quench the warning too.

> I think the section mismatch started happening when those wrapper
> functions were created, but all the callers seem to be __ref or __cpuinit.
>
> Or maybe we should just make that variable be non-cpuinitdata like your
> patch suggests.

At least this is the minimal change until a good reason comes along.

Thanks,
  Daniel

> Does anybody have strong preferences (patch appended for reference)?
>
>                Linus
> ---
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
>> index 8b92539..97d1b42 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
>> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ void cpu_maps_update_done(void)
>>       mutex_unlock(&cpu_add_remove_lock);
>>  }
>>
>> -static __cpuinitdata RAW_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cpu_chain);
>> +static RAW_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cpu_chain);
>>
>>  /* If set, cpu_up and cpu_down will return -EBUSY and do nothing.
>>   * Should always be manipulated under cpu_add_remove_lock
-- 
Daniel J Blueman
--
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/