Hi Greg,
please add this to stable, it's a bug that started showing up with newer
gcc. The upstream commit is 1c938663d58b5b2965976a6f54cc51b5d6f691aa.
Thanks,
Michal
From: Krzysztof Halasa <[email protected]>
Alan <[email protected]> writes:
> program: /home/alan/GitTrees/linux-2.6-mid-ref/scripts/mod/modpost -o
> Module.symvers -S vmlinux.o
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
It just hit me.
It's the offset calculation in reloc_location() which overflows:
return (void *)elf->hdr + sechdrs[section].sh_offset +
(r->r_offset - sechdrs[section].sh_addr);
E.g. for the first rodata r entry:
r->r_offset < sechdrs[section].sh_addr
and the expression in the parenthesis produces 0xFFFFFFE0 or something
equally wise.
Reported-by: Alan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Hałasa <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Alan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michal Marek <[email protected]>
diff --git a/scripts/mod/modpost.c b/scripts/mod/modpost.c
index 3318692..f877900 100644
--- a/scripts/mod/modpost.c
+++ b/scripts/mod/modpost.c
@@ -1342,7 +1342,7 @@ static unsigned int *reloc_location(struct elf_info *elf,
int section = sechdr->sh_info;
return (void *)elf->hdr + sechdrs[section].sh_offset +
- (r->r_offset - sechdrs[section].sh_addr);
+ r->r_offset - sechdrs[section].sh_addr;
}
static int addend_386_rel(struct elf_info *elf, Elf_Shdr *sechdr, Elf_Rela *r)
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:43:42AM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> please add this to stable, it's a bug that started showing up with newer
> gcc. The upstream commit is 1c938663d58b5b2965976a6f54cc51b5d6f691aa.
What -stable kernels do you want it applied to? .27, .32, .33, and/or
.34?
thanks,
greg k-h
On 29.6.2010 14:54, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:43:42AM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> please add this to stable, it's a bug that started showing up with newer
>> gcc. The upstream commit is 1c938663d58b5b2965976a6f54cc51b5d6f691aa.
>
> What -stable kernels do you want it applied to? .27, .32, .33, and/or
> .34?
I'd say all of them. I just tried it and applies cleanly.
Michal
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:33:14PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
> On 29.6.2010 14:54, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:43:42AM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >> please add this to stable, it's a bug that started showing up with newer
> >> gcc. The upstream commit is 1c938663d58b5b2965976a6f54cc51b5d6f691aa.
> >
> > What -stable kernels do you want it applied to? .27, .32, .33, and/or
> > .34?
>
> I'd say all of them. I just tried it and applies cleanly.
Ok, thanks, will do.
greg k-h
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 06:39 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:33:14PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
> > On 29.6.2010 14:54, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:43:42AM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
> > >> Hi Greg,
> > >>
> > >> please add this to stable, it's a bug that started showing up with newer
> > >> gcc. The upstream commit is 1c938663d58b5b2965976a6f54cc51b5d6f691aa.
> > >
> > > What -stable kernels do you want it applied to? .27, .32, .33, and/or
> > > .34?
> >
> > I'd say all of them. I just tried it and applies cleanly.
>
> Ok, thanks, will do.
Thanks. That fixes a major build problem for me.