linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blackfin: Makefile: Skip reloc overflow issue when COMPILE

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]

Date:	Wed, 08 Apr 2015 23:19:50 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Chen Gang <xili_gchen_5257@...mail.com>, realmz6@...il.com
CC:	adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blackfin: Makefile: Skip reloc overflow issue when COMPILE_TEST
 enabled

Am 08.04.2015 um 23:16 schrieb Chen Gang:
> On 4/9/15 05:10, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 08.04.2015 um 23:05 schrieb Chen Gang:
>>> l1_text is at L1_CODE_START (e.g. for bf533, 0xff800000). If the kernel
>>> is too big, it may be overwritten, the related issue:
>>>
>>>     LD      init/built-in.o
>>>   init/built-in.o: In function `do_early_param':
>>>   init/main.c:(.init.text+0xe0): relocation truncated to fit: R_BFIN_PCREL24 against symbol `strcmp' defined in .l1.text section in arch/blackfin/lib/lib.a(strcmp.o)
>>>   init/main.c:(.init.text+0x10e): relocation truncated to fit: R_BFIN_PCREL24 against symbol `strcmp' defined in .l1.text section in arch/blackfin/lib/lib.a(strcmp.o)
>>>   init/built-in.o: In function `unknown_bootoption':
>>>
>>> blackfin is for embedded system, the size limitition is acceptable, so
>>> it is not the real world issue, which should be skipped if COMPILE_TEST
>>> enabled.
>>
>> You're again papering over the real issue.
>> COMPILE_TEST is only one way to generate a too big kernel.
>> The right thing is to blow up and warn the user.
>>
> 
> If COMPILE_TEST is not set, the right thing is to blow up and warn the
> user.
> 
> But for me, if COMPILE_TEST is set, the right thing is to warn the user
> without blowing up (the user already know about it -- he/she only care
> about the building test).

How can you be sure that the issue you found is a) worth ignoring b) not solvable?
As you paper of it by adding an #ifdef COMPILE_TEST which is very hacky IMHO.

Thanks,
//richard
--
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/