>>> On 28.04.11 at 13:47, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 13:40, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 28.04.11 at 12:43, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 04:36:04PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> This is since the table is really a set of pointers, i.e. misplaced in >>>> .text. >>>> >>>> Quite likely other architectures would want to follow. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> --- 2.6.39-rc5/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h >>>> +++ 2.6.39-rc5-extable-in-rodata/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h >>>> @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ >>>> *(.rodata1) \ >>>> } \ >>>> \ >>>> + EXCEPTION_TABLE_RO \ >>> >>> That's odd. The kernel actually writes to it (sort_main_extable()), so >>> it shouldn't be in the ro data section, but the data section. >> >> This area does get written, but only at boot time, before read-only >> data gets set to r/o (on x86 at least). With this in mind, it's better >> to place it in .rodata, as that way run-time protection will be in place >> (and I think you agree that it was misplaced in .text in any case). > > Which means it may be in ROM (which is really read-only) on some embedded > devices, so it cannot be sorted? Perhaps - but since sorting is a requirement, people building such systems must have found a way... Anyway, I don't see where both your and Heiko's comment are heading, since the situation is even worse without the patch afaics (since .text gets marked read-only as much as .rodata does, and could equally be placed in ROM). Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
