On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 03:27:27 PDT (-0700), [email protected] wrote:
With CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y the R_RISCV_32 relocation is used by the
__kcrctab section.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab <[email protected]>
---
arch/riscv/kernel/module.c | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/module.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/module.c
index 5dddba301d..1d5e9b934b 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/module.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/module.c
@@ -17,6 +17,17 @@
#include <linux/errno.h>
#include <linux/moduleloader.h>
+static int apply_r_riscv_32_rela(struct module *me, u32 *location, Elf_Addr v)
+{
+ if (v != (u32)v) {
My worry with this kind of check is that it relies on some sort of undefined
behavior in C and that at some point in the future GCC will just go decide the
check can never fail. I checked and GCC doesn't elide these checks now, so I
might be wrong.
Is this defined to do what it looks like it's doing?
+ pr_err("%s: value %016llx out of range for 32-bit field\n",
+ me->name, v);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ *location = v;
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int apply_r_riscv_64_rela(struct module *me, u32 *location, Elf_Addr v)
{
*(u64 *)location = v;
@@ -265,6 +276,7 @@ static int apply_r_riscv_sub32_rela(struct module *me, u32
*location,
static int (*reloc_handlers_rela[]) (struct module *me, u32 *location,
Elf_Addr v) = {
+ [R_RISCV_32] = apply_r_riscv_32_rela,
[R_RISCV_64] = apply_r_riscv_64_rela,
[R_RISCV_BRANCH] = apply_r_riscv_branch_rela,
[R_RISCV_JAL] = apply_r_riscv_jal_rela,
Thanks!
