2011-04-25 14:28:55

by Anders Kaseorg

Subject: [PATCH] x86, vdso: SHN_LORESERVE is an inclusive lower bound

Test for >= SHN_LORESERVE instead of > SHN_LORESERVE.

Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
index 468d591..226bfad 100644
--- a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static __init void reloc_symtab(Elf32_Ehdr *ehdr,
sym->st_shndx == SHN_ABS)
continue; /* skip */

- if (sym->st_shndx > SHN_LORESERVE) {
+ if (sym->st_shndx >= SHN_LORESERVE) {
printk(KERN_INFO "VDSO: unexpected st_shndx %x\n",
sym->st_shndx);
continue;
--
1.7.5.rc3

2011-04-25 22:11:14

by Jeremy Fitzhardinge

Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, vdso: SHN_LORESERVE is an inclusive lower bound

On 04/25/2011 07:28 AM, Anders Kaseorg wrote:
> Test for >= SHN_LORESERVE instead of > SHN_LORESERVE.

Yep, seems reasonable. Did this cause a problem, or is it just
something you noticed?

J

> Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
> index 468d591..226bfad 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static __init void reloc_symtab(Elf32_Ehdr *ehdr,
> sym->st_shndx == SHN_ABS)
> continue; /* skip */
>
> - if (sym->st_shndx > SHN_LORESERVE) {
> + if (sym->st_shndx >= SHN_LORESERVE) {
> printk(KERN_INFO "VDSO: unexpected st_shndx %x\n",
> sym->st_shndx);
> continue;

2011-04-25 23:18:30

by Anders Kaseorg

Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, vdso: SHN_LORESERVE is an inclusive lower bound

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 04/25/2011 07:28 AM, Anders Kaseorg wrote:
> > Test for >= SHN_LORESERVE instead of > SHN_LORESERVE.
>
> Yep, seems reasonable. Did this cause a problem, or is it just
> something you noticed?

I just noticed it (while writing “modpost: Update 64k section support for
binutils 2.18.50”: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1130613 ).

Anders