[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdnJAApaUhTQs7w_VjSeYBQa0c-TNxRB4xPLi0Y0sOQMMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:22:29 -0700
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: a bug in genksysms/CONFIG_MODVERSIONS w/ __attribute__((foo))?
I'm looking into a linkage failure for one of our device kernels, and
it seems that genksyms isn't producing a hash value correctly for
aggregate definitions that contain __attribute__s like
__attribute__((packed)).
Example:
$ echo 'struct foo { int bar; };' | ./scripts/genksyms/genksyms -d
Defn for struct foo == <struct foo { int bar ; } >
Hash table occupancy 1/4096 = 0.000244141
$ echo 'struct __attribute__((packed)) foo { int bar; };' |
./scripts/genksyms/genksyms -d
Hash table occupancy 0/4096 = 0
I assume the __attribute__ part isn't being parsed correctly (looks
like genksyms is a lex/yacc based C parser).
The issue we have in our out of tree driver (*sadface*) is basically a
EXPORT_SYMBOL'd function whose signature contains a packed struct.
Theoretically, there should be nothing wrong with exporting a function
that requires packed structs, and this is just a bug in the lex/yacc
based parser, right? I assume that not having CONFIG_MODVERSIONS
coverage of packed structs in particular could lead to potentially
not-fun bugs? Or is using packed structs in exported function symbols
with CONFIG_MODVERSIONS forbidden in some documentation somewhere I
missed?
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists