linux-kernel - Re: avr32 build failures in linux-next

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: <yw1xegbi4d68.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:31:43 +0000
From:	Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>,
	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
	Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: avr32 build failures in linux-next

One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 21:30:55 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>> > On 02/08/2016 08:06 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com> wrote:
>> >>  
>> >>> Not very surprising either.  The number of people using Linux on avr32
>> >>> is probably approximately zero, and if anyone is, they're likely still
>> >>> running 2.6.32 or thereabouts.  
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Once I tried up the topic about removal avr32 for good, but looks like
>> >> it wasn't a good time. Maybe now is better? It would really reduce a
>> >> burden on many drivers.
>> >>  
>> > I would agree, as long as the maintainers agree. We don't want to repeat
>> > the h8300 experience.  
>> 
>> So, are we going to agree that avr32 must be retired from next cycle?
>> 
>> P.S. I have no idea how to fix this "…relocation truncated to fit:
>> R_AVR32_21S…", though I can test anything anyone propose.
>
> It means the AVR32 tool chain generated a 21bit signed code relocation
> then couldn't fix it up at link time. This probably simply means that
> something called through anon_inode_getfile() is now more than 1MB away
> from the call location, in which case you'll just need to debloat the
> kernel until it fits again or re-order the link to cure it (if I had to
> guess it'll be some kind of support function call and the compiler
> support tends to end up one end of the binary not in the middle).

It turned out to be a wrong asm operand constraint in cmpxchg().  Patch
already sent.

-- 
Måns Rullgård