Mark Rutland writes:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 07:46:01AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:27:04 +
>> Mark Rutland wrote:
>>
>> > Ah, so those non-ELF relocations for the mcount_loc table just mean "apply
>> > the
>> > KASLR offset here", which is equivalent for all
Mark Rutland writes:
>> Isn't x86 relocatable in some configurations (e.g. for KASLR)?
>>
>> I can't see how the sort works for those cases, because the mcount_loc
>> entries
>> are absolute, and either:
>>
>> * The sorted entries will get overwritten by the unsorted relocation entries,
>>
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:46:49AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> I'm not sure how x86 works here; AFAICT the relocations are performed during
> decompression, but it looks like there's some special build-time processing
> associated with that, and the vmlinux doesn't contain standard ELF
>
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 15:55, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:59:31PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 14:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:07:03PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > I suppose that on arm64, we can work
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 08:55:43AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 13:33:02 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > I want to get the regression fixed ASAP, so can we take a simple patch for
> > -rc2
> > which disables the build-time sort where it's currently broken (by limiting
>
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:59:31PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 14:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:07:03PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > I suppose that on arm64, we can work around this by passing
> > > --apply-dynamic-relocs to the linker,
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 14:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:07:03PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 13:59, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:22:17PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 13:20, Mark
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 13:33:02 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> I want to get the regression fixed ASAP, so can we take a simple patch for
> -rc2
> which disables the build-time sort where it's currently broken (by limiting
> the
> opt-in to arm and x86), then follow-up per-architecture to re-enable
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Sven Schnelle wrote:
> Mark Rutland writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 07:46:01AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:27:04 +
> >> Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ah, so those non-ELF relocations for the mcount_loc table
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:07:03PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 13:59, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:22:17PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 13:20, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:03:34PM +0100,
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 07:46:01AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:27:04 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > Ah, so those non-ELF relocations for the mcount_loc table just mean "apply
> > the
> > KASLR offset here", which is equivalent for all entries.
> >
> > That makes
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 13:59, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:22:17PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 13:20, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:03:34PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > >
> > > > These architectures use place-relative
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:22:17PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 13:20, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:03:34PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > > These architectures use place-relative extables for the same reason:
> > > place relative references
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:27:04 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> Ah, so those non-ELF relocations for the mcount_loc table just mean "apply the
> KASLR offset here", which is equivalent for all entries.
>
> That makes sense, thanks!
And this is why we were having such a hard time understanding each
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:04:41PM +0100, Sven Schnelle wrote:
> Mark Rutland writes:
>
> >> Isn't x86 relocatable in some configurations (e.g. for KASLR)?
> >>
> >> I can't see how the sort works for those cases, because the mcount_loc
> >> entries
> >> are absolute, and either:
> >>
> >> *
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 13:20, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:03:34PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 12:47, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
> > > [adding LKML so this is easier for others to find]
> > >
> > > If anyone wants to follow the thread from the
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:03:34PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 12:47, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > [adding LKML so this is easier for others to find]
> >
> > If anyone wants to follow the thread from the start, it's at:
> >
> >
> >
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 12:47, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> [adding LKML so this is easier for others to find]
>
> If anyone wants to follow the thread from the start, it's at:
>
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/944d10da-8200-4ba9-8d0a-3bed9aa99...@linux.ibm.com/
>
> Ard, I was under the
[adding LKML so this is easier for others to find]
If anyone wants to follow the thread from the start, it's at:
https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/944d10da-8200-4ba9-8d0a-3bed9aa99...@linux.ibm.com/
Ard, I was under the impression that the 32-bit arm kernel was (virtually)
relocatable,
Hi,
Steve pointed me at this thread over IRC -- I'm not subscribed to this list so
grabbed a copy of the thread thus far via b4.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:20:27AM +0800, Yinan Liu wrote:
> > Yeah, I think it's time to opt in, instead of opting out.
I agree this must be opt-in rather than
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:30:51 +0530
Sachin Sant wrote:
> Tested-by: Sachin Sant
Thanks, I'll start running it through my tests and send it to Linus later
today or tomorrow.
-- Steve
> On 24-Jan-2022, at 10:15 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 20:15:06 +0800
> Yinan Liu wrote:
>
>> Hi, Steven and Sachin
>>
>> I don't have a powerpc machine for testing, I guess the ppc has a
>> similar problem with the s390. It's not clear to me why the compiler
>> does
Yeah, I think it's time to opt in, instead of opting out.
Something like this:
-- Steve
diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
index c2724d986fa0..5256ebe57451 100644
--- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ config ARM
select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if
在 2022/1/24 下午5:19, Sachin Sant 写道:
While running stress_code_patching test from selftests/powerpc/mm
against 5.17-rc1 booted on a POWER10 LPAR following ftrace warning
is seen:
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 2017392 at kernel/trace/ftrace.c:2068
ftrace_bug+0x274/0x2d8
Modules linked in: dm_mod bonding
On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 20:15:06 +0800
Yinan Liu wrote:
> Hi, Steven and Sachin
>
> I don't have a powerpc machine for testing, I guess the ppc has a
> similar problem with the s390. It's not clear to me why the compiler
> does this. Maybe we can handle ppc like you did with the s390 before,
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
