linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blackfin: Cleanup linker script using new linker script macros.

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]

Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0909220846h338291fbwf1290d7a55443bbb@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:46:32 -0400
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To:	Tim Abbott <tabbott@...lice.com>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>,
	uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blackfin: Cleanup linker script using new linker script 
	macros.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:39, Tim Abbott wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:29, Tim Abbott wrote:
>> > On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 16:26, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:58:01AM -0400, Tim Abbott wrote:
>> >> >> OK.  I guess we should plan to modify the INIT_DATA_SECTION macro to add
>> >> >> another argument specifying an alignment level for .init.ramfs.  It'd be
>> >> >> inconvenient to add that right now since there are a lot of patches in
>> >> >> linux-next or otherwise in flight that introduce uses of
>> >> >> INIT_DATA_SECTION, and those patches would all be broken by changing this
>> >> >> now.  Once the dust settles on that for this release, I'll submit a patch
>> >> >> adding said argument to INIT_DATA_SECTION.
>> >> >
>> >> > But this is all discarded during runtime so the added alignment has no cost in the end - no?
>> >>
>> >> once things are booted, there should be no difference.  but
>> >> storage/boot costs increase (you have to store/extract/copy that extra
>> >> data).  you know how miserly we embedded people like to be ;).
>> >
>> > OK, so how do you want to do this?  The options I see are:
>> > (1) we merge this patch now, and add the new alignment argument for -rc2
>> > (2) we add the alignment argument sometime after -rc1 and then merge this
>> > for -rc2
>>
>> doing it in two steps is OK by me and sounds like it'd be easier for you
>
> Both options involve two steps -- but as (1) is obviously easier for me, I
> assume that's what you were referring to.  Thanks.
>
> So are you going to send this to Linus?  I'd be happy to do so, but I'd
> need your ack.

if you apply the .text_l1 update (.init.ramfs -> .exit.data), then you
can add my s-o-b.  otherwise the original patch as posted is broken.
-mike
--
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/