[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4DB96E6A020000780003E9EB@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:40:58 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: <mingo@...e.hu>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] allow placing exception table in .rodata (and do
so on x86)
>>> On 28.04.11 at 12:43, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 04:36:04PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> This is since the table is really a set of pointers, i.e. misplaced in
>> .text.
>>
>> Quite likely other architectures would want to follow.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> --- 2.6.39-rc5/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> +++ 2.6.39-rc5-extable-in-rodata/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@
>> *(.rodata1) \
>> } \
>> \
>> + EXCEPTION_TABLE_RO \
>
> That's odd. The kernel actually writes to it (sort_main_extable()), so
> it shouldn't be in the ro data section, but the data section.
This area does get written, but only at boot time, before read-only
data gets set to r/o (on x86 at least). With this in mind, it's better
to place it in .rodata, as that way run-time protection will be in place
(and I think you agree that it was misplaced in .text in any case).
Jan
>> JUMP_TABLE \
>
> same here.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists