linux-kernel - Re: ARM: relocation out of range (when loading a module)

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:	Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:45:53 +0000
From:	Dave Martin <dave.martin@...aro.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Sachin Verma <imschnvrm@...il.com>,
	Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	catalin.marinas@....com
Subject: Re: ARM: relocation out of range (when loading a module)

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:31:04AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
>> You could probably cook up a good upper bound based on the size of the
>> kernel and the number of symbols in the module: i.e., assume that
>> every undefined symbol in the module needs to be fixed up to point at
>> the most distant symbol in the kernel.
>>
>> For people with normal-sized kernels, this bound will probably work
>> out as zero most of the time (i.e., the current situation).  For
>> people with big kernels, or when many modules are already loaded, it
>> may work out at 100% -- but that's the price to pay for guaranteed
>> preallocation of the space required for the veneers.  And anyway, you
>> may really need a substantial chunk of those veneers in such cases.
>
> I think it's going to be easier just to re-order the kernel image link
> order to solve that problem.  That just leaves uclinux...
>

But if the kernel is big, or there are many modules, changing the
order can't solve the problem surely?  Or is the problem purely caused
by having the initramfs in the way, and we think the amount of actual
code will never be big enough to cause a problem?

Cheers
---Dave
--
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/