[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:25:40 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Masahiro Yamada
<masahiroy@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Steven Rostedt
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/28] init: lto: ensure initcall ordering
On Thu, 2020-09-03 at 13:30 -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> With LTO, the compiler doesn't necessarily obey the link order for
> initcalls, and initcall variables need globally unique names to avoid
> collisions at link time.
>
> This change exports __KBUILD_MODNAME and adds the initcall_id() macro,
> which uses it together with __COUNTER__ and __LINE__ to help ensure
> these variables have unique names, and moves each variable to its own
> section when LTO is enabled, so the correct order can be specified using
> a linker script.
>
> The generate_initcall_ordering.pl script uses nm to find initcalls from
> the object files passed to the linker, and generates a linker script
> that specifies the intended order. With LTO, the script is called in
> link-vmlinux.sh.
Is this guaranteed to give you the *same* initcall ordering with LTO as
without?
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5174 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
