Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 May 2012 12:20:41 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Urgent: x86-32 and GNU ld 2.22.52.0.1 |
| |
* Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:20 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > > On 05/18/2012 09:14 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > >>> I need an urgent opinion. It seems we have an epic mess on our hands. > >>> > >>> GNU ld 2.22.52.0.1 silently changed the semantics of section-relative > >>> symbols that are part of otherwise empty sections, and silently changes > >>> them to absolute. We rely on section-relative symbols staying > >>> section-relative, and actually have several sections in the linker > >>> script solely for this purpose. > >> > >> That is I talked to you a couple days ago: > >> > >> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14052 > >> > > > > I know, which was a very good thing... otherwise we'd probably not have > > tracked this down anywhere near as quickly. Thank you. > > > > The problem is that this version of binutils made it into Fedora 17, and > > so we now have a large number of users with a known bad binutils in the > > field... > > We've not seen many kernel bugs that would seem to be blamed > on this as of yet. It does seem like a problem waiting to hit > us once F17 goes GA though. My limited 32-bit F17 machine > collection definitely shows the __init_{begin,end} symbols > being absolute, but they boot fine. Likely because the kernel > isn't relocated on them.
Relocation is rare, it typically happens with crashdump kernels.
Thanks,
Ingo -- 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/
| |