linux-kernel - Re: Please include const-sections into linux-next

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:	Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:49:27 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please include const-sections into linux-next

On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 16:03 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> > It's not incredibly trivial: it causes a compile failure on parisc:
> > 
> > mm/percpu.c:1372: error: __setup_str_percpu_alloc_setup causes a section
> > type conflict
> > make[1]: *** [mm/percpu.o] Error 1
> > 
> > I have no idea why, though.
> > 
> 
> Not sure why this would only happen on parisc, but I haven't looked at it 
> closely.  It means something qualified with const is being defined in a 
> section with other definitions that are not const, or vice versa.

I think it's probably a compiler bug.  gcc isn't as adept with section
annotations as people think it is.  This tends to manifest in the
non-x86 toolchains because we tend to be using earlier versions.

James


--
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/