linux-kernel - Re: [BUG]x86: relocatable doesn't work with new binutils

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: <20101217100559.GB8413@cr0.nay.redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:05:59 +0800
From:	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Lu, Hongjiu" <hongjiu.lu@...el.com>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG]x86: relocatable doesn't work with new binutils

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:21:54AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
>On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 10:59 +0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 12/16/2010 06:42 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
>> > We can easily workaround this issue by moving jiffies to a section or at
>> > least warn people if such binutils are using. what should we do?
>> 
>> I think we should do the workaround, but still get distros to update the
>> broken binutils.
>Here is my workaround.
>The problem is a lot of kernel versions are affected by this, fix all?
>
>
>
>The CONFIG_RELOCATABLE is broken with new binutils, which will make boot
>panic. According to Lu Hongjiu, the affected binutils are from
>2.20.51.0.12 to 2.21.51.0.3, which are release since Oct 22 this year.
>At least ubuntu 10.10 is using such binutils. see:
>http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12327
>The reason of boot panic is we have 'jiffies = jiffies_64;' in
>vmlinux.lds.S. The jiffies isn't in any section. In kernel build, there
>is warning saying jiffies is an absolute address and can't be
>relocatable. At runtime, jiffies will have virtual address 0.
>

Just curious, what change in binutils caused this? And what build
warning did you see? Section mismatch warning?

Thanks.
--
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/