linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 7 (kallsyms failure)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:29:35 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 7 (kallsyms failure)

Hi all,

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 18:30:57 -0800 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/07/16 15:56, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:42:32 -0800 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:  
> >>
> >> I started seeing this yesterday (2016-1206).
> >> This is on x86_64.
> >>
> >> Anybody know about it?
> >>
> >> kallsyms failure: relative symbol value 0xffffffff81000000 out of range in relative mode  
> > 
> > I got a similar failure starting a few days ago on my powerpc
> > allyesconfig build.  I was assuming that it was PowerPC specific, but
> > noone has found a cause yet.
> >   
> 
> It may just be an invalid randconfig.  I modified scripts/kallsyms.c and
> I see this message:
> kallsyms failure: relative symbol value 0xffffffff81000000 [symbol: Tstartup_64] out of range in relative mode
> 
> and it makes sense that startup_64 would (or could) be at 0xffffffff81000000...
> especially since CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START=0x1000000 and
> (from Documentation/x86/x86_64/mm.txt)
> ffffffff80000000 - ffffffff9fffffff (=512 MB)  kernel text mapping, from phys 0
> 
> 
> Ard, what do you think about this?

The similar failure I saw in the powerpc allyesconfig build

kallsyms failure: relative symbol value 0xc000000000000000 out of range in relative mode

was caused by commit

  8ab2ae655bfe ("default exported asm symbols to zero")

which has been reverted in Linus' tree today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell