Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | Date | Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:40:51 -0700 | Subject | Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/vdso: Discard the __bug_table section |
| |
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:43 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > On 06/24/2014 11:37 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> >>> 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); >>> >> >> I think the old test was correct: we haven't incremented count yet >> (it's a couple lines below), so count is the zero-based index to which >> we're writing. >> >> I thought of doing the need = %d thing, but I think that the output is >> a foregone conclusion: count == max_count + 1 when this fails. A list >> of all the section names would be more interesting, but eu-readelf -S >> will tell is that. >> > > Well, I have reproduced this failure. eu-readelf output included.
It's branch profiling. Patches coming.
> > -hpa >
-- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC
| |