> > > - if (sym->st_shndx == SHN_COMMON)
> > > + if (sym->st_shndx == SHN_COMMON) {
> > > + pr_err("symbol in common section\n");
> > > return -ENOEXEC;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > if (sym->st_shndx >= pi->ehdr->e_shnum &&
> > > - sym->st_shndx != SHN_ABS)
> > > + sym->st_shndx != SHN_ABS) {
> > > + pr_err("Invalid section %d for symbol\n",
> > > + sym->st_shndx);
> > > return -ENOEXEC;
> >
> > So, if you add the additional error messages here, then I'd really
> > like to see also the name of the symbol which is causing
> > problems. Just like it is done on x86.
> > Sorry for nitpicking :)
>
> I actually dropped the name on purpose. At least for my work flow
> knowing which check failed is more important as that already allows
> me to search for, e.g. all undefined symbols as each of them can cause
> trouble. Which symbol exactly triggered the check isn't that important.
> In addition, the code to get a symbol name is rather ugly. At least
> when you compare it to its usefulness.
>
> But when you insist...
Yes, please.
> P.S. To avoid an other round for that patch. Do you also want the two
> pr_debugs?
No, I don't think they are needed.
Thank you!
