Re: [PATCH][RFC] 2.6 && module + -g && kernel w/o -g

[Tom Rini]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/