[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170313184609.GC8117@packer-debian-8-amd64.digitalocean.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:46:09 -0400
From: Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>
To: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: set .init_array alignment to 8
+++ David Daney [07/03/17 17:31 -0800]:
>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>
Good catch, thanks. I've applied this to modules-next.
Jessica
>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)) }
> }
>--
>2.9.3
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists