| 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: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:15:37 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.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 Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:54:23AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > One alternative to track it down would be to apply the attached > > patch to the gcc, then gcc would print it out. > > I think the basic problem that excites the toolchain somehow is > sectional annotations. Can't we just dump them and do it all in a We already use these annotations all over. Just currently they mess up the 'r' and 'w' bits on the sections because a few (not the majority) of declarations mismatch the ro vs rw sections. My patchkit was just trying to fix up those that were wrong So you should be already using them. Just need to find out what triggers your toolchain with these changes. I suspect it's some kind of toolchain bug. > linker script? Linker scripts seem to be much better tested. The linker script just declares the order of the section. The attributes are a union of what the compiler declares. To dump them I just use objdump --section-headers or readelf -a usually. -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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