| To: | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Assert notifier_block and notifier_call are not in init section |
| From: | "Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:54:36 -0700 |
| Cc: | stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604251336090.3701@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | YPO4 |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0604251624430.839-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604251336090.3701@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > What about loadable modules? Is their code never loaded into memory that > > used to be part of an init section? > > Their code might _physically_ reside in a re-allocation of an init > section, but will have a virtual address far away (and it would be the > virtual address that you'd see if you took the address of a function). and the freed init data area is poisoned (in 386, x86_64, powerpc, and sparc64). --- ~Randy |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Assert notifier_block and notifier_call are not in init section, Linus Torvalds |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Assert notifier_block and notifier_call are not in init section, Chandra Seetharaman |
| Previous by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Assert notifier_block and notifier_call are not in init section, Linus Torvalds |
| Next by Thread: | [xfs-masters] [Bug 646] New: [2.4.31][XFS] I cannot create XFS on evms volume larger than 1TB, bugzilla-daemon |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |