linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.35-rc1, patch] fix cpu

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006010842350.3637@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>,
	Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6.35-rc1, patch] fix cpu_chain section mismatch...



On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>
> In 2.6.35-rc1, __cpu_notify access cpu_chain, which shouldn't be
> marked __cpuinitdata (via section mismatch warning).

Hmm. Does this section mismatch go away if you instead mark cpu_notify(), 
__cpu_notify() and cpu_notify_nofail as "inline"? Or alternatively, maybe 
they should all be marked as __ref?

I think the section mismatch started happening when those wrapper 
functions were created, but all the callers seem to be __ref or __cpuinit. 

Or maybe we should just make that variable be non-cpuinitdata like your 
patch suggests.

Does anybody have strong preferences (patch appended for reference)?

		Linus
---
> Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index 8b92539..97d1b42 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ void cpu_maps_update_done(void)
>  	mutex_unlock(&cpu_add_remove_lock);
>  }
> 
> -static __cpuinitdata RAW_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cpu_chain);
> +static RAW_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cpu_chain);
> 
>  /* If set, cpu_up and cpu_down will return -EBUSY and do nothing.
>   * Should always be manipulated under cpu_add_remove_lock
> -- 
> Daniel J Blueman
> 
--
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/