On 14.06.2021 11:41, Julien Grall wrote: > On 11/06/2021 11:39, Jan Beulich wrote: >> This confuses disassemblers, at the very least. Move >> .altinstr_replacement to .init.text, > > The alternative code was borrowed from Linux. The code has now changed > to cater very large kernel. They used to keep the .altinstr_replacement > and altinstructions close to each other (albeit they were both in > .init.text). > > I am not entirely why, but I am a bit worry to separate them. What sort > of test did you do?
Well, just build tests, on the assumption that relocation overflows would be reported by the linker if the sections ended up too far apart. >> dropping the redundant ALIGN(). >> >> Also, to have .altinstr_replacement have consistent attributes in the >> object files, add "x" to the one instance where it was missing. > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> --- >> I'm uncertain whether having .altinstr_replacement inside or outside the >> [_sinittext,_einittext) region is better; I simply followed what we have >> on the x86 side right now. > > This means the altinstructions will be marked executable in the > page-table. They technically should not be executable, so I would move > them outside _einittext and make sure the section is aligned to a PAGE_SIZE. Hmm, are you saying you bother getting attributes right for .init.* in the page tables? I ask because we don't on x86, and because it would seem wasteful to me to pad to PAGE_SIZE just for this. But you're the maintainer, i.e. I'm merely double checking ... Jan
