linux-kernel - [tip:x86/urgent] x86: Fix section mismatch on load_ucode

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: <tip-949785996ec2250fa958fc3a924e5186e9a8fa2c@git.kernel.org>
Date:	Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:03:42 -0700
From:	tip-bot for Paul Gortmaker <tipbot@...or.com>
To:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...ux.intel.com,
	paul.gortmaker@...driver.com
Subject: [tip:x86/urgent] x86: Fix section mismatch on load_ucode_ap

Commit-ID:  949785996ec2250fa958fc3a924e5186e9a8fa2c
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/949785996ec2250fa958fc3a924e5186e9a8fa2c
Author:     Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
AuthorDate: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:15:26 -0400
Committer:  H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
CommitDate: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:43:59 -0700

x86: Fix section mismatch on load_ucode_ap

We are in the process of removing all the __cpuinit annotations.
While working on making that change, an existing problem was
made evident:

  WARNING: arch/x86/kernel/built-in.o(.text+0x198f2): Section mismatch
  in reference from the function cpu_init() to the function
  .init.text:load_ucode_ap()   The function cpu_init() references
  the function __init load_ucode_ap().  This is often because cpu_init
  lacks a __init annotation or the annotation of load_ucode_ap is wrong.

This now appears because in my working tree, cpu_init() is no longer
tagged as __cpuinit, and so the audit picks up the mismatch.  The 2nd
hypothesis from the audit is the correct one, as there was an incorrect
__init tag on the prototype in the header (but __cpuinit was used on
the function itself.)

The audit is telling us that the prototype's __init annotation took
effect and the function did land in the .init.text section.  Checking
with objdump on a mainline tree that still has __cpuinit shows that
the __cpuinit on the function takes precedence over the __init on the
prototype, but that won't be true once we make __cpuinit a no-op.

Even though we are removing __cpuinit, we temporarily align both
the function and the prototype on __cpuinit so that the changeset
can be applied to stable trees  if desired.

[ hpa: build fix only, no object code change ]

Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: stable <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.9+
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1371654926-11729-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
index 6825e2e..6bc3985 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
@@ -60,11 +60,11 @@ static inline void __exit exit_amd_microcode(void) {}
 #ifdef CONFIG_MICROCODE_EARLY
 #define MAX_UCODE_COUNT 128
 extern void __init load_ucode_bsp(void);
-extern __init void load_ucode_ap(void);
+extern void __cpuinit load_ucode_ap(void);
 extern int __init save_microcode_in_initrd(void);
 #else
 static inline void __init load_ucode_bsp(void) {}
-static inline __init void load_ucode_ap(void) {}
+static inline void __cpuinit load_ucode_ap(void) {}
 static inline int __init save_microcode_in_initrd(void)
 {
 	return 0;
--
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/