From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1KT8kS-0004lA-SE for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:18:17 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec jump: fix code size checking From: Huang Ying In-Reply-To: References: <1218589475.24951.59.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <20080813024701.GA19201@verge.net.au> <1218596715.24951.69.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:18:12 +0800 Message-Id: <1218604692.24951.92.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net, Kexec Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Simon Horman , Pavel Machek , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , mingo@elte.hu, Vivek Goyal On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 20:40 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: [...] > 4) Put the code is a special section .text.kexec? and have the linker > always do the size comparison and the computation of the section size. > > The fewer conditionals we have the less likely something is to break. Yes. This one is good. But I think current one is acceptable too. Best Regards, Huang Ying _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752867AbYHMFSY (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:18:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751460AbYHMFSR (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:18:17 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:62659 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751324AbYHMFSQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:18:16 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,199,1217833200"; d="scan'208";a="325770082" Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec jump: fix code size checking From: Huang Ying To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Simon Horman , Pavel Machek , nigel@nigel.suspend2.net, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , Vivek Goyal , mingo@elte.hu, Linus Torvalds , Kexec Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <1218589475.24951.59.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <20080813024701.GA19201@verge.net.au> <1218596715.24951.69.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:18:12 +0800 Message-Id: <1218604692.24951.92.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 20:40 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: [...] > 4) Put the code is a special section .text.kexec? and have the linker > always do the size comparison and the computation of the section size. > > The fewer conditionals we have the less likely something is to break. Yes. This one is good. But I think current one is acceptable too. Best Regards, Huang Ying