[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191118175223.GM6363@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:52:23 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Ilie Halip <ilie.halip@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86/boot: explicitly place .eh_frame after .rodata
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 09:46:23AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> Yep. Looks like:
> - arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> - arch/x86/realmode/rm/realmode.lds.S
>
> discard .eh_frame, while
> - arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso-layout.lds.S
> - arch/x86/um/vdso/vdso-layout.lds.S
>
> keep it. I assume then that just vdso code that get linked into
> userspace needs to preserve this.
Yap, that's what I think too. Lemme add Andy to Cc.
> This suggestion would be a functional change, which is why we pursued
> the conservative change preserving it.
Sure but what would be the purpose of preserving the section, especially
in the early boot code? At least I don't see one. And kernel-proper
kills it...
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists