Re: [PATCH] Kallsyms Should Prefer Non Weak Symbols

[Paulo Marques]

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > kallsyms returns the first symbol encountered, even though it is weak,
> > > when it should in fact return sys_ni_syscall.
> > > Is it a concern for anyone else out there ? Would it make sense to fix
> > > it ?
> > I don't know if it is a concern, but if we're going to fix it, we should
> > probably do it in "scripts/kallsyms" by providing a list that is already
> > sorted according to "address, weakness".
> >
> > This way the run-time kernel keeps the current behavior, without any
> > overhead. Something along the lines of the attached patch (just compile
> > tested).
> >
> > However, this is an area where we've had problems in the past with some
> > architectures giving different results between passes, and then any change
> > to the symbol order might make the problem worse and make the build process
> > fail with a "Inconsistent kallsyms data" error message.
> >
> > So, if someone wants to use this, it should go through -mm for a while,
> > first.
> >
> > It applies on top of 2.6.24-rc2-git3.
>
> Please use this reply with correct CC list for further discussion.

I've been wanting to send this as a proper patch request email, but I 
just hadn't found the time to do it, and then our mail server just went 
berserk and I lost 5 days of LKML :P

I think the patch is ok as it is, but a nice message explaining what it 
does and why would be nice for the changelog. So, I'll post a new 
message with a nice description for inclusion in -mm today.

Sorry for the delay,

--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com

"Very funny Scotty. Now beam up my clothes."
-
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/