From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 16:30:22 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] kexec_file: Drop weak attribute from
 arch_kexec_apply_relocations[_add]
In-Reply-To: <20220525125627.acf27b28bb67417a6683a1d9@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20220518181828.645877-1-naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<87ee0q7b92.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
	<YoWySwbszfdZS9LU@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
	<87bkvt4d56.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
	<20220520104641.GB194232@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
	<877d6g0zxq.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
	<20220525125627.acf27b28bb67417a6683a1d9@linux-foundation.org>
Message-ID: <1653562638.7zk3zmzd88.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
List-Id: <kexec.lists.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: kexec@lists.infradead.org

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:25:05 -0500 "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> 
>> > I am not strongly against taking off __weak, just wondering if there's
>> > chance to fix it in recordmcount, and the cost comparing with kernel fix;
>> > except of this issue, any other weakness of __weak. Noticed Andrew has
>> > picked this patch, as a witness of this moment, raise a tiny concern.
>> 
>> I just don't see what else we can realistically do.
> 
> I think converting all of the kexec __weaks to use the ifdef approach
> makes sense, if only because kexec is now using two different styles.
> 
> But for now, I'll send Naveen's v2 patch in to Linus to get us out of
> trouble.

Thanks!

> 
> I'm thinking that we should add cc:stable to that patch as well, to
> reduce the amount of problems which people experience when using newer
> binutils on older kernels?

Yes, please. I missed tagging this for stable. It looks like this is 
applicable all the way back to v4.9 (though I haven't tested if 
recordmcount fails in the same manner with those older kernel levels). I 
will post backports once this gets into linus' tree.


- Naveen