linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Move most arches to asm-generic/current.h

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: <CAEdQ38GUKdAxEhAUWCUGv_4znmYANEgd0TY2vYOaO6Y2=p2vog@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:11:25 -0400
From:	Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
	Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move most arches to asm-generic/current.h

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 04/30/12 09:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
>> On Monday 30 April 2012, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> I admit I haven't compile tested this on all the affected architectures.
>>> Looking at the architectures that are migrated here I don't see any that
>>> are defining get_current() as a macro except for alpha. Should I drop
>>> alpha from the patch? Or would it be easier if someone threw this into
>>> linux-next and see if it blows up?
>>>
>>> In the meantime I can scrounge around for those kernel.org
>>> cross-compilers and see if I can compile alpha.
>> I'd say either get an Ack from the Alpha maintainers or drop that
>> hunk from your patch.
>>
>
> Ok. Alpha maintainers, do you see any problem with a static inline
> function for get_current() instead of the current macro? My compile of
> alpha with the kernel.org 4.6.3 compilers doesn't show any new build
> failures than what is already there:
>
>  LD      .tmp_vmlinux1
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `ide_set_disk_chs':
> drivers/ide/ide.c:269:(.text+0x732a8): relocation truncated to fit: GPREL16 against `.sbss'
> drivers/ide/ide.c:269:(.text+0x732b0): relocation truncated to fit: GPREL16 against `.sbss'
> drivers/ide/ide.c:267:(.text+0x73310): relocation truncated to fit: GPREL16 against `.sbss'
> drivers/ide/ide.c:267:(.text+0x73318): relocation truncated to fit: GPREL16 against `.sbss'
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `ide_dev_apply_params':
> drivers/ide/ide.c:299:(.text+0x73714): relocation truncated to fit: GPREL16 against `.sbss'
> drivers/ide/ide.c:303:(.text+0x73724): relocation truncated to fit: GPREL16 against `.sbss'
> drivers/ide/ide.c:308:(.text+0x73734): relocation truncated to fit: GPREL16 against `.sbss'
> drivers/ide/ide.c:315:(.text+0x73744): relocation truncated to fit: GPREL16 against `.sbss'
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `unexpected_intr':
> drivers/ide/ide-io.c:734:(.text+0x74dfc): relocation truncated to fit: GPREL16 against `.sbss'
> drivers/ide/ide-io.c:736:(.text+0x74e00): relocation truncated to fit: GPREL16 against `.sbss'
> drivers/ide/ide-io.c:734:(.text+0x74e10): additional relocation overflows omitted from the output
> make[1]: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
> make: *** [sub-make] Error 2

I'll take a look later this week.

The relocation truncated to fit: GPREL16 against ... error is caused
by the kernel being too large and compiling with -msmall-data. We've
really got to do something about this -- this happens way too often to
way too many people.

Matt
--
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/