[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <mvm8t7liwrr.fsf@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:54:00 +0200
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
Cc: linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Handle R_RISCV_32 in modules
On Jun 08 2018, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 03:27:27 PDT (-0700), schwab@...e.de wrote:
>> With CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y the R_RISCV_32 relocation is used by the
>> __kcrctab section.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
>> ---
>> arch/riscv/kernel/module.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/module.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/module.c
>> index 5dddba301d..1d5e9b934b 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/module.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/module.c
>> @@ -17,6 +17,17 @@
>> #include <linux/errno.h>
>> #include <linux/moduleloader.h>
>>
>> +static int apply_r_riscv_32_rela(struct module *me, u32 *location, Elf_Addr v)
>> +{
>> + if (v != (u32)v) {
>
> My worry with this kind of check is that it relies on some sort of
> undefined behavior in C and that at some point in the future GCC will just
> go decide the check can never fail. I checked and GCC doesn't elide these
> checks now, so I might be wrong.
>
> Is this defined to do what it looks like it's doing?
This is unsigned arithmetic, thus fully defined.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@...e.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."
Powered by blists - more mailing lists