linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 4/4] init/gcov: allow CONFIG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 13:55:35 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 4/4] init/gcov: allow CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS on
 UML to fix module gcov

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 07:25:21PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>On Mon, 2021-02-08 at 18:00 +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit 55b6f763d8bcb5546997933105d66d3e6b080e6a ]
>>
>> On ARCH=um, loading a module doesn't result in its constructors getting
>> called, which breaks module gcov since the debugfs files are never
>> registered.  On the other hand, in-kernel constructors have already been
>> called by the dynamic linker, so we can't call them again.
>>
>> Get out of this conundrum by allowing CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS to be
>> selected, but avoiding the in-kernel constructor calls.
>>
>> Also remove the "if !UML" from GCOV selecting CONSTRUCTORS now, since we
>> really do want CONSTRUCTORS, just not kernel binary ones.
>>
>> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210120172041.c246a2cac2fb.I1358f584b76f1898373adfed77f4462c8705b736@changeid
>>
>
>
>While I don't really *object* to this getting backported, it's also a
>(development) corner case that somebody wants gcov and modules in
>ARCH=um ... I'd probably not backport this.

I'll drop it then, thanks!

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha