linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warnings from the build of Linus' tree

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]

Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:27:20 +0200
From:   Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings from the build of Linus' tree

On 08.09.2018 05:57, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 14:50:59 +0200
> Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 06.09.2018 18:42, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>> Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> I've attached a quick fix that should address both problems. I'd
>>>> appreciate if this patch could get some testing before I post proper fix
>>>> patches.
>>>
>>> Hmm, I'm still not able to reproduce it on powerpc cross build even with
>>> CONFIG_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION=y ... So, sorry I couldn't test this patch.
>>
>> Maybe this is related to the compiler/binutils versions used. I'm using
>> Fedora 28's gcc-powerpc64 and binutils-powerpc64 packages:
>>
>> powerpc64-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 7.1.1 20170622 (Red Hat Cross 7.1.1-3)
>> GNU ld version 2.29.1-4.fc28
>>
>> For reference I'm also attaching the config that I used to reproduce the
>> problem on kernel v4.18.
>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/vmlinux.lds.h b/arch/arm/kernel/vmlinux.lds.h
>>>> index ae5fdff18406..2ca33277a28b 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/vmlinux.lds.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/vmlinux.lds.h
>>>> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
>>>>
>>>>  #define ARM_DISCARD							\
>>>>  		*(.ARM.exidx.exit.text)					\
>>>> +		*(.ARM.exidx.text.exit)					\
>>>
>>> BTW, why would we need this?
>>
>> That's necessary to fix one of the two ARM linker failures reported via
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/24/345
>>
>>>>> `.text.exit' referenced in section `.ARM.exidx.text.exit' of
>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_clock.o: defined in discarded section `.text.exit'
>>>>> of kernel/trace/trace_clock.o
>>
>> Section ".ARM.exidx.text.exit" refers to ".text.exit" which was
>> discarded. With the change above, the extraneous section
>> ".ARM.exidx.text.exit" is also discarded, resolving the linker failure.
> 
> OK, so your patch fixes following issue too?
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10584685/

Yes it does, by discarding the text.exit section unconditionally. I
don't think we need to keep any exit-related section introduced by GCOV
profiling. It is my understanding that the code contained in such a
section is only relevant for user-space profiling, to process profiling
data when a program ends.

Also discarding .ARM.exidx.text.exit seems to be more consistent to how
.ARM.exidx.exit.text is handled.

> In that case, we should drop above patch.

Yes, I agree.

-- 
Peter Oberparleiter
Linux on Z Development - IBM Germany