linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH UPDATED] sched: adjust when cpu_active and cpuset configurations are updated during cpu on/offlining

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:	Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:28:33 -0700
From:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED] sched: adjust when cpu_active and cpuset 
	configurations are updated during cpu on/offlining

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> * Ingo's test discovered __cpuinit/exit markups were incorrect.
>  Fixed.

No it isn't :-(

> +static int __cpuexit cpuset_cpu_active(struct notifier_block *nfb,
> +                                      unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
...
> +static int __cpuexit cpuset_cpu_inactive(struct notifier_block *nfb,
> +                                        unsigned long action, void *hcpu)

This patch arrived in linux-next (tag next-20100621) and breaks the
ia64 build for configurations where CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n
with the following cryptic error:

`.cpuexit.text' referenced in section `.IA_64.unwind.cpuexit.text' of
kernel/built-in.o: defined in discarded section `.cpuexit.text' of
kernel/built-in.o

This is because ia64 link stage drops __exit functions from
built-in code (under the logic that they can never be called).

Is the problem in the !CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU definition of
hotcpu_notifier() in <linux/cpu.h> which still references the
function argument:

#define hotcpu_notifier(fn, pri)        do { (void)(fn); } while (0)

Or should these functions not be marked __cpuexit?

-Tony
--
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/