linux-kernel - Re: [171/197] module: fix __module_ref

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: <20100428172944.GA14660@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:29:44 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Jiri Benc <jbenc@...e.cz>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...nel.org, stable-review@...nel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [171/197] module: fix __module_ref_addr()

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 07:24:13PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 04/28/2010 06:55 PM, Jiri Benc wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:20:56 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> Can you try reverting commit c8d52465f95c4187871f8e65666c07806ca06d41 and see if
> >> it helps ?
> > 
> > It doesn't. The produced code is identical.
> > 
> >> If you have other compiler versions handy, that would also be helpful to see if
> >> the problem is specific to the gcc version you are using.
> > 
> > Tried 4.5.0, the same problem (at least looking at the produced assembler
> > code, I haven't booted the kernel, but it looks very similar to 4.3.3).
> 
> I wrote on the bugzilla but this is not a compiler bug but the -stable
> patch shouldn't have been applied only to 2.6.33.  Not 2.6.32.  This
> is because till 2.6.32, ia64 hadn't been converted to dynamic percpu
> allocator, so its static and dynamic percpu areas were separate and
> the per_cpu_ptr() wouldn't do the offsetting the module code expects
> there.  So, please revert the patch from 2.6.32.

Ah crap, I missed that.  I'll go revert it from .32 now, sorry about
that.

greg k-h
--
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/