linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memblock: fix section mismatch warning again

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]

Message-ID: <f47fe1eb-aecf-d12c-ae30-76331227f9dc@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:46:03 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memblock: fix section mismatch warning again

On 16.03.21 18:13, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
> 
> Commit 34dc2efb39a2 ("memblock: fix section mismatch warning") marked
> memblock_bottom_up() and memblock_set_bottom_up() as __init, but they could
> be referenced from non-init functions like memblock_find_in_range_node() on
> architectures that enable CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK.
> 
> For such builds kernel test robot reports:
> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by <<):
> 
>>> WARNING: modpost: vmlinux.o(.text+0x74fea4): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_find_in_range_node() to the function .init.text:memblock_bottom_up()
> The function memblock_find_in_range_node() references
> the function __init memblock_bottom_up().
> This is often because memblock_find_in_range_node lacks a __init
> annotation or the annotation of memblock_bottom_up is wrong.
> 
> Replace __init annotations with __init_memblock annotations so that the
> appropriate section will be selected depending on
> CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202103160133.UzhgY0wt-lkp@intel.com
> Fixes: 34dc2efb39a2 ("memblock: fix section mismatch warning")
> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> ---
> 
> @Andrew, please let me know if you'd prefer this merged via memblock tree.
> 
>   include/linux/memblock.h | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index d13e3cd938b4..5984fff3f175 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ static inline void memblock_free_late(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
>   /*
>    * Set the allocation direction to bottom-up or top-down.
>    */
> -static inline __init void memblock_set_bottom_up(bool enable)
> +static inline __init_memblock void memblock_set_bottom_up(bool enable)
>   {
>   	memblock.bottom_up = enable;
>   }
> @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ static inline __init void memblock_set_bottom_up(bool enable)
>    * if this is true, that said, memblock will allocate memory
>    * in bottom-up direction.
>    */
> -static inline __init bool memblock_bottom_up(void)
> +static inline __init_memblock bool memblock_bottom_up(void)
>   {
>   	return memblock.bottom_up;
>   }
> 

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb