Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:26:11 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/vdso: Discard the __bug_table section |
| |
On 06/24/2014 11:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> >>> One of the recent x86/urgent vdso commits causes this build failure: >>> >>> Error: too many copied sections (max = 13) >> >> I can't reproduce this with your config, which suggestes a binutils >> issue, which is annoying. Can you tell me what version of ld you're >> using and send me the output of: >> >> for i in arch/x86/vdso/*.so.dbg; do echo $i; eu-readelf -S $i; done > > Ping! > > The current state of this is obviously not so good, but I don't know > how to proceed. >
We used to have this kind of problems with PHDRs, where ld would guess how much space it would need, somehow guess wrong, and fall on its face.
I think we want to actually print the number that we are trying to copy in addition to the maximum, and I also noticed the test looks wrong. Thus I would like to propose the following patch as a diagnostic:
diff --git a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.h b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.h index f42e2ddc663d..94158e100f26 100644 --- a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.h +++ b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.h @@ -99,8 +99,9 @@ static void BITSFUNC(copy_section)(struct BITSFUNC(fake_sections) *out, if (!copy) return;
- if (out->count >= out->max_count) - fail("too many copied sections (max = %d)\n", out->max_count); + if (out->count > out->max_count) + fail("too many copied sections (max = %d, need = %d)\n", + out->max_count, out->count);
if (in_idx == out->in_shstrndx) out->out_shstrndx = out->count; Does anyone have any objection? Andy, I presume I am correct that => should be > there? -hpa
| |