From: Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Subject: Re: String literals in __init functions Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:05:09 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CA+rthh9H4C6b=eGdNmFj3Vb+rHUCPOuaDL1h5i_WXWtNGZYS2A@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20150326144058.56ef6916b00ad38030296089@linux-foundation.org> On 26 March 2015 at 22:40, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Andrew, what's your opinion on such a patch set? Do you too think it's >> useful? Or do you share Ingo's fear about the additional maintenance >> burden? > > I don't think the burden would be toooo high, although it will mess the > code up a bit. > > The post-build checking for section reference mismatches will help, > although that seems to have got itself turned off (what happened > there?). Seem to be working fine here. This is make M=lib/, building the test module: CC [M] lib/test_module.o Building modules, stage 2. MODPOST 1 modules LD [M] lib/test_module.ko This is the same module with two pi_info() calls in a non-__init function, therefore generating section mismatches: CC [M] lib/test_module.o Building modules, stage 2. MODPOST 1 modules WARNING: modpost: Found 2 section mismatch(es). To see full details build your kernel with: 'make CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y' LD [M] lib/test_module.ko > Did anyone look at writing a postprocessor for the .s files? It > doesn't look like it will be too hard from an initial peek. > > Did anyone ask the gcc developers? I'd have thought that a function-wide > > __attribute__((__string_section__(foo)) > > wouldn't be a ton of work to implement. The point is you cannot blindly mark all strings referenced from __init / __exit code to end up in a matching string section because strings in this code might have to live longer when passed to functions keeping a pointer on them. For example, the name passed to class_create() won't be copied. If that one would go into the .init.rodata section automatically, we would have dangling pointers after the .init.* memory got freed. To know if it's safe to automatically put a string into an .init / .exit section one needs to see the whole code. That's why I'm reasoning it needs to be an LTO pass, not a .s post-processor or function wide section attribute. Or, as in my approach, a source level annotation. Thanks, Mathias
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: minipli@googlemail.com (Mathias Krause) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: String literals in __init functions Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:05:09 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CA+rthh9H4C6b=eGdNmFj3Vb+rHUCPOuaDL1h5i_WXWtNGZYS2A@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20150326144058.56ef6916b00ad38030296089@linux-foundation.org> On 26 March 2015 at 22:40, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Andrew, what's your opinion on such a patch set? Do you too think it's >> useful? Or do you share Ingo's fear about the additional maintenance >> burden? > > I don't think the burden would be toooo high, although it will mess the > code up a bit. > > The post-build checking for section reference mismatches will help, > although that seems to have got itself turned off (what happened > there?). Seem to be working fine here. This is make M=lib/, building the test module: CC [M] lib/test_module.o Building modules, stage 2. MODPOST 1 modules LD [M] lib/test_module.ko This is the same module with two pi_info() calls in a non-__init function, therefore generating section mismatches: CC [M] lib/test_module.o Building modules, stage 2. MODPOST 1 modules WARNING: modpost: Found 2 section mismatch(es). To see full details build your kernel with: 'make CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y' LD [M] lib/test_module.ko > Did anyone look at writing a postprocessor for the .s files? It > doesn't look like it will be too hard from an initial peek. > > Did anyone ask the gcc developers? I'd have thought that a function-wide > > __attribute__((__string_section__(foo)) > > wouldn't be a ton of work to implement. The point is you cannot blindly mark all strings referenced from __init / __exit code to end up in a matching string section because strings in this code might have to live longer when passed to functions keeping a pointer on them. For example, the name passed to class_create() won't be copied. If that one would go into the .init.rodata section automatically, we would have dangling pointers after the .init.* memory got freed. To know if it's safe to automatically put a string into an .init / .exit section one needs to see the whole code. That's why I'm reasoning it needs to be an LTO pass, not a .s post-processor or function wide section attribute. Or, as in my approach, a source level annotation. Thanks, Mathias
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-27 7:05 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-03-25 17:56 String literals in __init functions Mason 2015-03-25 17:56 ` Mason 2015-03-25 18:01 ` Joe Perches 2015-03-25 18:01 ` Joe Perches 2015-03-26 12:40 ` Mason 2015-03-26 12:40 ` Mason 2015-03-26 16:13 ` Joe Perches 2015-03-26 16:13 ` Joe Perches 2015-03-26 16:37 ` Mathias Krause 2015-03-26 16:37 ` Mathias Krause 2015-03-26 17:53 ` Joe Perches 2015-03-26 17:53 ` Joe Perches 2015-03-26 20:49 ` Mathias Krause 2015-03-26 20:49 ` Mathias Krause 2015-03-26 21:40 ` Andrew Morton 2015-03-26 21:40 ` Andrew Morton 2015-03-26 21:58 ` Joe Perches 2015-03-26 21:58 ` Joe Perches 2015-03-26 22:15 ` Andrew Morton 2015-03-26 22:15 ` Andrew Morton 2015-03-27 7:16 ` Mathias Krause 2015-03-27 7:16 ` Mathias Krause 2015-04-02 16:00 ` Joseph Myers 2015-04-02 16:00 ` Joseph Myers 2015-04-02 16:23 ` Joe Perches 2015-04-02 16:23 ` Joe Perches 2015-03-27 7:05 ` Mathias Krause [this message] 2015-03-27 7:05 ` Mathias Krause 2015-03-27 7:32 ` Joe Perches 2015-03-27 7:32 ` Joe Perches
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CA+rthh9H4C6b=eGdNmFj3Vb+rHUCPOuaDL1h5i_WXWtNGZYS2A@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=minipli@googlemail.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=joe@perches.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mingo@kernel.org \ --cc=slash.tmp@free.fr \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.