Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:33:48 -0700 | From | Tom Rini <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] 2.6 && module + -g && kernel w/o -g |
| |
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 02:23:29PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:09:37 -0700, Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> said: > > Tom> The following patch fixes the problem for me on PPC32: > > Tom> --- 1.96/kernel/module.c Wed Jan 7 22:46:59 2004 > Tom> +++ edited/kernel/module.c Wed Jan 14 14:05:12 2004 > Tom> @@ -1439,6 +1439,13 @@ > Tom> strindex = sechdrs[i].sh_link; > Tom> strtab = (char *)hdr + sechdrs[strindex].sh_offset; > Tom> } > Tom> + > Tom> + /* If we find any debug RELAs, frob these away now. */ > Tom> + if (sechdrs[i].sh_type == SHT_RELA && > Tom> + (strstr(secstrings+sechdrs[i].sh_name, ".debug") > Tom> + != 0)) > Tom> + sechdrs[i].sh_type = SHT_NULL; > Tom> + > Tom> #ifndef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD > Tom> /* Don't load .exit sections */ > Tom> if (strncmp(secstrings+sechdrs[i].sh_name, ".exit", 5) == 0) > > Tom> IMHO, this shouldn't be covered under a PPC32 test since at > Tom> least PPC32, PPC64 and Alpha have this issue, and I suspect > Tom> that ia64, parisc, s390 and v850 have the problem as well > Tom> (based on what their module_arch_frob bits look to be doing). > > As far as ia64 is concerned, adding a check for .debug should be OK, > but since the debug sections do not have any relocs anyhow, it > shouldn't make much of a difference one way or another (addresses in > the debug section a segment-relative).
OK, I wasn't sure. I just did a real quick skim of everyones module.c to see if they did any for loops and checking of SHT_RELA.
-- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - 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/
| |