On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 10:46:33PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 04:25:50PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 09:03:10AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > TEXT_MAIN, DATA_MAIN and friends are defined differently depending on > > > whether certain config options enable -ffunction-sections and/or > > > -fdata-sections. > > > > > > There's no technical reason for that beyond voodoo coding. Keeping the > > > separate implementations adds unnecessary complexity, fragments the > > > logic, and increases the risk of subtle bugs. > > > > > > Unify the macros by using the same input section patterns across all > > > configs. > > > > > > This is a prerequisite for the upcoming livepatch klp-build tooling > > > which will manually enable -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections via > > > KCFLAGS. > > > > > > Cc: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Vasily Gorbik <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Alexander Gordeev <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h | 40 ++++++++++--------------------- > > > scripts/module.lds.S | 12 ++++------ > > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) > > [...] > > > I'm seeing some KP when trying to load modules after this change. I > > believe there is some sort of incompatibility with the SCS (Shadow Call > > Stack) code in arm64? The panic is always on __pi_scs_handle_fde_frame: > > > > init: Loading module [...]/drivers/net/wireless/virtual/mac80211_hwsim.ko > > Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffffffe6468f0ffc > > [...] > > nit: please don't trim the useful stuff when reporting a crash! > > > pc : __pi_scs_handle_fde_frame+0xd8/0x15c > > lr : __pi_$x+0x74/0x138 > > sp : ffffffc08005bb10 > > x29: ffffffc08005bb10 x28: ffffffc081873010 x27: 0000000000000000 > > x26: 0000000000000007 x25: 0000000000000000 x24: 0000000000000000 > > x23: 0000000000000001 x22: ffffffe649794fa0 x21: ffffffe6469190b4 > > x20: 000000000000182c x19: 0000000000000001 x18: ffffffc080053000 > > x17: 000000000000002d x16: ffffffe6469190c5 x15: ffffffe6468f1000 > > x14: 000000000000003e x13: ffffffe6469190c6 x12: 00000000d50323bf > > x11: 00000000d503233f x10: ffffffe649119cb8 x9 : ffffffe6468f1000 > > x8 : 0000000000000100 x7 : 00656d6172665f68 x6 : 0000000000000001 > > x5 : 6372610000000000 x4 : 0000008000000000 x3 : 0000000000000000 > > x2 : ffffffe647e528f4 x1 : 0000000000000001 x0 : 0000000000000004 > > Call trace: > > __pi_scs_handle_fde_frame+0xd8/0x15c (P) > > module_finalize+0xfc/0x164 > > post_relocation+0xbc/0xd8 > > load_module+0xfd4/0x11a8 > > __arm64_sys_finit_module+0x23c/0x328 > > invoke_syscall+0x58/0xe4 > > el0_svc_common+0x80/0xdc > > do_el0_svc+0x1c/0x28 > > el0_svc+0x54/0x1c4 > > el0t_64_sync_handler+0x68/0xdc > > el0t_64_sync+0x1c4/0x1c8 > > Code: 54fffd4c 1400001f 3707ff63 aa0903ef (b85fcdf0) > > Hmm, looks like a translation fault from the load buried here: > > u32 insn = le32_to_cpup((void *)loc); > > in scs_patch_loc(), called from the 'DW_CFA_negate_ra_state' case in > scs_handle_fde_frame(). So presumably 'loc' is bogus. > > Since you replied to this patch, does reverting it fix the problem for > you?
Yes, but it is only coincidental. The real issue seems to be with our toolchain. I'll start looking there instead. Sorry for the noise. -- Carlos Llamas
