Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753071Ab1BGITg (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 7 Feb 2011 03:19:36 -0500
Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com ([65.115.85.69]:61439 "EHLO
	smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752546Ab1BGITd (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 7 Feb 2011 03:19:33 -0500
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 00:19:33 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Early crash (was: Re: module: show version information for
 built-in modules in sysfs)
Message-ID: <20110207081933.GA11855@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
References: <AANLkTin4gOnEMruLDM=TkNYsNf5S370WqbcDVJzT7_Z4@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110201210944.GA12348@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
 <AANLkTimv=KqtuR36dMNa+=OMi0mgd8JK4qsb_SpmKmhs@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110201222637.GA17521@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
 <AANLkTikWVt8NEyHN+=yD4EWSXUQt0gt5nLJtKQDw397M@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110202194227.GA13794@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
 <m2ipx2dp7v.fsf@igel.home>
 <20110202235948.GA8676@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
 <m2bp2udllv.fsf@igel.home>
 <20110203002459.GA26729@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110203002459.GA26729@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3285
Lines: 90

On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:24:59PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:10:04PM -0800, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Even pointers? I'd expect pointers to be aligned on 4-bytes boundaries?
> > 
> > Pointers are not special in any way.  Why should they?  On the machine
> > level pointers are just numbers.
> 
> Are pointers (along with ints/longs) on m68k naturally aligned on word
> boundary even though they are 32 bit?
> 
> Anyway, here is the description that introduced alignment statement:
> 
> commit 02dba5c6439cff34936460b95cd1ba42b370f345
> Author: ak <ak>
> Date:   Sat Jun 21 16:18:16 2003 +0000
> 
>     [PATCH] Fix over-alignment problem on x86-64
> 
>     Thanks to Jan Hubicka who suggested this fix.
> 
>     The problem seems to be that gcc generates a 32byte alignment for static
>     objects > 32bytes.  This causes gas to set a high alignment on the
>     section, which causes the uneven (not multiple of sizeof(struct
>     kernel_param)) section size.  The pointer division with a base not being
>     a multiple of sizeof(*ptr) then causes the invalid result.
> 
>     This just forces a small alignment, which makes the section end come out
>     with the correct alignment.
> 
>     The only mystery left is why ld chose a 16 byte padding instead of
>     32byte.
> 
>     BKrev: 3ef485487jZN-h3PtASDeL2Vs55NIg
> 
> 
> I guess this does not directly apply to modversions since they are
> currently under 32 bytes, but I wonder what happen if we decide to
> extend one of the structures involved...
> 
> I guess explicitly setting alignment requirement for struct
> module_version_attribute is the best option.
> 

So here is the patch that explicitly specifies alignment for struct
module_version_attribute. I tested it on i386 and x86_64 and I believe
it will fix the issue with m68k but I do not have access to such a box.

Thanks,
Dmitry

>From f0e0e10b58b22047e36e21a022abf5e86b5819c2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:30:10 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] module: explicitly align module_version_attribute structure

We force particular alignment when we generate attribute structures
when generation MODULE_VERSION() data and we need to make sure that
this alignment is followed when we iterate over these structures,
otherwise we may crash on platforms whose natural alignment is not
sizeof(void *), such as m68k.

Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>
---
 include/linux/module.h |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
index e7c6385..de5cd21 100644
--- a/include/linux/module.h
+++ b/include/linux/module.h
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ struct module_version_attribute {
 	struct module_attribute mattr;
 	const char *module_name;
 	const char *version;
-};
+} __attribute__ ((__aligned__(sizeof(void *))));
 
 struct module_kobject
 {
-- 
1.7.3.2

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/