Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 26 May 2022 16:30:22 +0530
From:   "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec_file: Drop weak attribute from
 arch_kexec_apply_relocations[_add]
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
References: <20220518181828.645877-1-naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <87ee0q7b92.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
        <YoWySwbszfdZS9LU@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
        <87bkvt4d56.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
        <20220520104641.GB194232@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
        <877d6g0zxq.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
        <20220525125627.acf27b28bb67417a6683a1d9@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220525125627.acf27b28bb67417a6683a1d9@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: astroid/4d6b06ad (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid)
Message-Id: <1653562638.7zk3zmzd88.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:25:05 -0500 "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission=
.com> wrote:
>=20
>> > I am not strongly against taking off __weak, just wondering if there's
>> > chance to fix it in recordmcount, and the cost comparing with kernel f=
ix;
>> > except of this issue, any other weakness of __weak. Noticed Andrew has
>> > picked this patch, as a witness of this moment, raise a tiny concern.
>>=20
>> I just don't see what else we can realistically do.
>=20
> I think converting all of the kexec __weaks to use the ifdef approach
> makes sense, if only because kexec is now using two different styles.
>=20
> But for now, I'll send Naveen's v2 patch in to Linus to get us out of
> trouble.

Thanks!

>=20
> I'm thinking that we should add cc:stable to that patch as well, to
> reduce the amount of problems which people experience when using newer
> binutils on older kernels?

Yes, please. I missed tagging this for stable. It looks like this is=20
applicable all the way back to v4.9 (though I haven't tested if=20
recordmcount fails in the same manner with those older kernel levels). I=20
will post backports once this gets into linus' tree.


- Naveen