LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Early crash (was: Re: module: show version information for built-in modules in sysfs)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 00:19:33 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110207081933.GA11855@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110203002459.GA26729@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>

On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:24:59PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:10:04PM -0800, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Even pointers? I'd expect pointers to be aligned on 4-bytes boundaries?
> > 
> > Pointers are not special in any way.  Why should they?  On the machine
> > level pointers are just numbers.
> 
> Are pointers (along with ints/longs) on m68k naturally aligned on word
> boundary even though they are 32 bit?
> 
> Anyway, here is the description that introduced alignment statement:
> 
> commit 02dba5c6439cff34936460b95cd1ba42b370f345
> Author: ak <ak>
> Date:   Sat Jun 21 16:18:16 2003 +0000
> 
>     [PATCH] Fix over-alignment problem on x86-64
> 
>     Thanks to Jan Hubicka who suggested this fix.
> 
>     The problem seems to be that gcc generates a 32byte alignment for static
>     objects > 32bytes.  This causes gas to set a high alignment on the
>     section, which causes the uneven (not multiple of sizeof(struct
>     kernel_param)) section size.  The pointer division with a base not being
>     a multiple of sizeof(*ptr) then causes the invalid result.
> 
>     This just forces a small alignment, which makes the section end come out
>     with the correct alignment.
> 
>     The only mystery left is why ld chose a 16 byte padding instead of
>     32byte.
> 
>     BKrev: 3ef485487jZN-h3PtASDeL2Vs55NIg
> 
> 
> I guess this does not directly apply to modversions since they are
> currently under 32 bytes, but I wonder what happen if we decide to
> extend one of the structures involved...
> 
> I guess explicitly setting alignment requirement for struct
> module_version_attribute is the best option.
> 

So here is the patch that explicitly specifies alignment for struct
module_version_attribute. I tested it on i386 and x86_64 and I believe
it will fix the issue with m68k but I do not have access to such a box.

Thanks,
Dmitry

>From f0e0e10b58b22047e36e21a022abf5e86b5819c2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:30:10 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] module: explicitly align module_version_attribute structure

We force particular alignment when we generate attribute structures
when generation MODULE_VERSION() data and we need to make sure that
this alignment is followed when we iterate over these structures,
otherwise we may crash on platforms whose natural alignment is not
sizeof(void *), such as m68k.

Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>
---
 include/linux/module.h |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
index e7c6385..de5cd21 100644
--- a/include/linux/module.h
+++ b/include/linux/module.h
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ struct module_version_attribute {
 	struct module_attribute mattr;
 	const char *module_name;
 	const char *version;
-};
+} __attribute__ ((__aligned__(sizeof(void *))));
 
 struct module_kobject
 {
-- 
1.7.3.2


  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-02-07  8:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-02-01 20:33 Geert Uytterhoeven
2011-02-01 21:09 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2011-02-01 22:03   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2011-02-01 22:26     ` Dmitry Torokhov
2011-02-02 14:48       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2011-02-02 19:42         ` Dmitry Torokhov
2011-02-02 22:52           ` Andreas Schwab
2011-02-02 23:59             ` Dmitry Torokhov
2011-02-03  0:10               ` Andreas Schwab
2011-02-03  0:24                 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2011-02-03 17:38                   ` Andreas Schwab
2011-02-07  8:19                   ` Dmitry Torokhov [this message]
2011-02-07  8:50                     ` Early crash David Miller
2011-02-07 16:58                       ` Dmitry Torokhov
2011-02-07 19:27                         ` David Miller
2011-02-07 19:28                           ` Dmitry Torokhov
2011-02-08  3:12                           ` Rusty Russell
2011-02-08  3:31                             ` David Miller

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=20110207081933.GA11855@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com \
    --to=dtor@vmware.com \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=schwab@linux-m68k.org \
    --subject='Re: Early crash (was: Re: module: show version information for built-in modules in sysfs)' \
    /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: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).