From: David Daney <hidden> Date: 2017-03-01 22:06:11
For powerpc the __jump_table section in modules is not aligned, this
causes a WARN_ON() splat when loading a module containing a __jump_table.
Strict alignment became necessary with commit 3821fd35b58d
("jump_label: Reduce the size of struct static_key"), currently in
linux-next, which uses the two least significant bits of pointers to
__jump_table elements.
Fix by forcing __jump_table to 8, which is the same alignment used for
this section in the kernel proper.
Signed-off-by: David Daney <redacted>
Tested-by: Sachin Sant <redacted>
---
scripts/module-common.lds | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Date: 2017-03-02 10:58:26
David Daney [off-list ref] writes:
For powerpc the __jump_table section in modules is not aligned, this
causes a WARN_ON() splat when loading a module containing a __jump_table.
Thanks for doing the patch.
If it helps:
Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> (powerpc)
Strict alignment became necessary with commit 3821fd35b58d
("jump_label: Reduce the size of struct static_key"), currently in
linux-next, which uses the two least significant bits of pointers to
__jump_table elements.
It would obviously be nice if this could go in before the commit that
exposes the breakage, but I guess that's problematic because Steve
doesn't want to rebase the tracing tree.
Steve I think you've already sent your pull request for this cycle? So I
guess if this can go in your first batch of fixes?
Or we could just send it directly to Linus?
cheers
quoted hunk
Fix by forcing __jump_table to 8, which is the same alignment used for
this section in the kernel proper.
Signed-off-by: David Daney <redacted>
Tested-by: Sachin Sant <redacted>
---
scripts/module-common.lds | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Date: 2017-03-02 14:23:30
Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] writes:
David Daney [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Strict alignment became necessary with commit 3821fd35b58d
("jump_label: Reduce the size of struct static_key"), currently in
linux-next, which uses the two least significant bits of pointers to
__jump_table elements.
It would obviously be nice if this could go in before the commit that
exposes the breakage, but I guess that's problematic because Steve
doesn't want to rebase the tracing tree.
Steve I think you've already sent your pull request for this cycle? So I
guess if this can go in your first batch of fixes?
Ugh. Was looking at the wrong tree - Linus has already merged the commit
in question, so the above is all moot.
cheers
From: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com> Date: 2017-03-02 15:36:09
On 03/01/2017 05:04 PM, David Daney wrote:
For powerpc the __jump_table section in modules is not aligned, this
causes a WARN_ON() splat when loading a module containing a __jump_table.
Strict alignment became necessary with commit 3821fd35b58d
("jump_label: Reduce the size of struct static_key"), currently in
linux-next, which uses the two least significant bits of pointers to
__jump_table elements.
Fix by forcing __jump_table to 8, which is the same alignment used for
this section in the kernel proper.
Signed-off-by: David Daney <redacted>
Tested-by: Sachin Sant <redacted>
---
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
Thanks,
-Jason
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Date: 2017-03-02 17:45:26
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 22:18:30 +1100
Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] wrote:
Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
David Daney [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Strict alignment became necessary with commit 3821fd35b58d
("jump_label: Reduce the size of struct static_key"), currently in
linux-next, which uses the two least significant bits of pointers to
__jump_table elements.
It would obviously be nice if this could go in before the commit that
exposes the breakage, but I guess that's problematic because Steve
doesn't want to rebase the tracing tree.
Steve I think you've already sent your pull request for this cycle? So I
guess if this can go in your first batch of fixes?
Ugh. Was looking at the wrong tree - Linus has already merged the commit
in question, so the above is all moot.
No problem. I've got some other "fixes" to push to Linus. That's what
the -rc releases are for. To fix up breakage from the merge window ;-)
I'll pull this into my tree.
Thanks!
-- Steve
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Date: 2017-03-02 18:12:54
Can I get an Ack from a module maintainer?
Thanks!
-- Steve
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:04:53 -0800
David Daney [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk
For powerpc the __jump_table section in modules is not aligned, this
causes a WARN_ON() splat when loading a module containing a __jump_table.
Strict alignment became necessary with commit 3821fd35b58d
("jump_label: Reduce the size of struct static_key"), currently in
linux-next, which uses the two least significant bits of pointers to
__jump_table elements.
Fix by forcing __jump_table to 8, which is the same alignment used for
this section in the kernel proper.
Signed-off-by: David Daney <redacted>
Tested-by: Sachin Sant <redacted>
---
scripts/module-common.lds | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:04:53 -0800
David Daney [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
For powerpc the __jump_table section in modules is not aligned, this
causes a WARN_ON() splat when loading a module containing a __jump_table.
Strict alignment became necessary with commit 3821fd35b58d
("jump_label: Reduce the size of struct static_key"), currently in
linux-next, which uses the two least significant bits of pointers to
__jump_table elements.
Fix by forcing __jump_table to 8, which is the same alignment used for
this section in the kernel proper.
Signed-off-by: David Daney <redacted>
Tested-by: Sachin Sant <redacted>
---
scripts/module-common.lds | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
From: David Daney <hidden> Date: 2017-03-02 21:02:54
On 03/02/2017 10:26 AM, Jessica Yu wrote:
quoted hunk
+++ Steven Rostedt [02/03/17 13:11 -0500]:
quoted
Can I get an Ack from a module maintainer?
Acked-by: Jessica Yu <redacted>
Thanks!
Jessica
Thanks Jessica,
Can you also add scripts/module-common.lds to MAINTAINERS so that
get_maintainers.pl will indicate that Jessica Yu and Rusty Russell be
CCed on things like this in the future?
quoted
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:04:53 -0800
David Daney [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
For powerpc the __jump_table section in modules is not aligned, this
causes a WARN_ON() splat when loading a module containing a
__jump_table.
Strict alignment became necessary with commit 3821fd35b58d
("jump_label: Reduce the size of struct static_key"), currently in
linux-next, which uses the two least significant bits of pointers to
__jump_table elements.
Fix by forcing __jump_table to 8, which is the same alignment used for
this section in the kernel proper.
Signed-off-by: David Daney <redacted>
Tested-by: Sachin Sant <redacted>
---
scripts/module-common.lds | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
Thanks Jessica,
Can you also add scripts/module-common.lds to MAINTAINERS so that
get_maintainers.pl will indicate that Jessica Yu and Rusty Russell be
CCed on things like this in the future?
Sure thing. Thanks for the heads up!
Jessica
quoted
quoted
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:04:53 -0800
David Daney [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
For powerpc the __jump_table section in modules is not aligned, this
causes a WARN_ON() splat when loading a module containing a
__jump_table.
Strict alignment became necessary with commit 3821fd35b58d
("jump_label: Reduce the size of struct static_key"), currently in
linux-next, which uses the two least significant bits of pointers to
__jump_table elements.
Fix by forcing __jump_table to 8, which is the same alignment used for
this section in the kernel proper.
Signed-off-by: David Daney <redacted>
Tested-by: Sachin Sant <redacted>
---
scripts/module-common.lds | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Date: 2017-03-03 03:44:38
Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] writes:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 22:18:30 +1100
Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
David Daney [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Strict alignment became necessary with commit 3821fd35b58d
("jump_label: Reduce the size of struct static_key"), currently in
linux-next, which uses the two least significant bits of pointers to
__jump_table elements.
It would obviously be nice if this could go in before the commit that
exposes the breakage, but I guess that's problematic because Steve
doesn't want to rebase the tracing tree.
Steve I think you've already sent your pull request for this cycle? So I
guess if this can go in your first batch of fixes?
Ugh. Was looking at the wrong tree - Linus has already merged the commit
in question, so the above is all moot.
No problem. I've got some other "fixes" to push to Linus. That's what
the -rc releases are for. To fix up breakage from the merge window ;-)