On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 09:53:39PM -0700, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 4:04 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > index 5430febd34be..b83c00c63997 100644 > > > --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h > > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h > > > @@ -684,6 +684,7 @@ > > > #ifdef CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS > > > #define KERNEL_CTORS() . = ALIGN(8); \ > > > __ctors_start = .; \ > > > + KEEP(*(SORT(.ctors.*))) \ > > > KEEP(*(.ctors)) \ > > > KEEP(*(SORT(.init_array.*))) \ > > > KEEP(*(.init_array)) \ > > > -- > > > 2.25.1 > > I think it would be great to figure out why these .ctors.* .dtors.* are generated. I haven't had the time to investigate. This patch keeps sfr's builds from regressing, so we need at least this first. > ~GCC 4.7 switched to default to .init_array/.fini_array if libc > supports it. I have some refactoring in this area of Clang as well > (e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D71393) > > And I am not sure SORT(.init_array.*) or SORT(.ctors.*) will work. The > correct construct is SORT_BY_INIT_PRIORITY(.init_array.*) The kernel doesn't seem to use the init_priority attribute at all. Are you saying the cause of the .ctors.* names are a result of some internal use of init_priority by the compiler here? -- Kees Cook
