[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e30975ba-0e5b-218f-0edf-04377d55e7b2@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 17:26:03 +0300
From: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: set .init_array alignment to 8
On 03/08/2017 04:31 AM, David Daney wrote:
> The proper idiom for aligning linker sections in modules is different
> than for built-in sections. ". = ALIGN();" followed by a forced
> output address of 0 does nothing, as forcing the address changes the
> value of ".".
>
> Use output section alignment specifier instead.
>
> Fixes: 9ddf82521c86 ("kernel: add support for .init_array.* constructors")
> Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
> ---
>
> I noticed this when doing the __jump_table thing. Doesn't seem to
> break a defconfig build, but otherwise untested.
>
> scripts/module-common.lds | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/module-common.lds b/scripts/module-common.lds
> index 9b6e246..d61b9e8 100644
> --- a/scripts/module-common.lds
> +++ b/scripts/module-common.lds
> @@ -20,8 +20,7 @@ SECTIONS {
> __kcrctab_unused_gpl 0 : { *(SORT(___kcrctab_unused_gpl+*)) }
> __kcrctab_gpl_future 0 : { *(SORT(___kcrctab_gpl_future+*)) }
>
> - . = ALIGN(8);
> - .init_array 0 : { *(SORT(.init_array.*)) *(.init_array) }
> + .init_array 0 : ALIGN(8) { *(SORT(.init_array.*)) *(.init_array) }
>
> __jump_table 0 : ALIGN(8) { KEEP(*(__jump_table)) }
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists