Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Add non-zero module sections to sysfs | Date | Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:30:50 +1030 |
| |
Sebastian Wankerl <sisewank@cip.cs.fau.de> writes: > On 04/04/13 03:00, Rusty Russell wrote: >> Sebastian Wankerl <sisewank@cip.cs.fau.de> writes: >>> Add non-zero module sections to sysfs on architectures unequal to PARISC. >>> KGDB needs all module sections for proper module debugging. Therefore, commit >>> 35dead4235e2b67da7275b4122fed37099c2f462 is revoked except for PARISC >>> architecture. >> #ifdef CONFIG_PARISC in the middle of kernel/module.c is super-ugly, and >> wrong. > > I don't see why this is wrong. It used to load all sections to sysfs > until the patch mentioned. Actually, it is the PARISC build chain which > is broken.
Exactly. Don't workaround it here, revert it and put the duplicate-section-name fixup in parisc where it belongs.
Assuming parisc still produces these dup sections: that patch is 4 years old now.
Untested:
diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/module.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/module.c index 2a625fb..28d32a2 100644 --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/module.c +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/module.c @@ -341,6 +341,11 @@ int module_frob_arch_sections(CONST Elf_Ehdr *hdr, ".PARISC.unwind", 14) == 0) me->arch.unwind_section = i; + /* we produce multiple, empty .text sections, and kallsyms + * gets upset. make non-alloc so it doesn't see them. */ + if (sechdrs[i].sh_size == 0) + sechdrs[i].sh_flags &= ~SHF_ALLOC; + if (sechdrs[i].sh_type != SHT_RELA) continue; >> My preference would be to fix kgdb. If the section is empty, what need >> does it have to examine it? > GDB needs to know all sections of the binary and its addresses.
Why? Does something refer to this empty section? Why has noone noticed this since 2009?
> It is generally useful to be able to check up all sections of the binary > regardless if they are empty or not so one can see the binary's > structure.
A zero-length section doesn't change the binary's structure. You don't see non-SHF_ALLOC sections either.
Cheers, Rusty.
| |