linux-kernel - Re: [2.6 patch] scsi/qlogicpti.c section fixes

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:	Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:00:16 -0600
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] scsi/qlogicpti.c section fixes


On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 22:03 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch fixes the following section mismatches:
> 
> <--  snip  -->
> 
> ...
> WARNING: drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.o(.devexit.text+0x8): Section mismatch in reference from the function qpti_sbus_remove() to the function .init.text:qpti_chain_del()
> WARNING: drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.o(.devinit.text+0x56c): Section mismatch in reference from the function qpti_sbus_probe() to the function .init.text:qpti_map_regs()
> WARNING: drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.o(.devinit.text+0x580): Section mismatch in reference from the function qpti_sbus_probe() to the function .init.text:qpti_register_irq()
> WARNING: drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.o(.devinit.text+0x594): Section mismatch in reference from the function qpti_sbus_probe() to the function .init.text:qpti_get_scsi_id()
> WARNING: drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.o(.devinit.text+0x5b8): Section mismatch in reference from the function qpti_sbus_probe() to the function .init.text:qpti_map_queues()
> WARNING: drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.o(.devinit.text+0x780): Section mismatch in reference from the function qpti_sbus_probe() to the function .init.text:qpti_chain_add()
> ...

OK, look, this is really getting out of hand.

__init is possibly justifiable with a few hundred k savings on boot.
__devinit and the rest are surely killable on the grounds they provide
little benefit for all the pain they cause.

all __exit seems to do is set us up for unreferenced pointers in
discarded sections, so could we kill that too?

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/