similar to: LLD : __start_ and __end_ symbols for orphan sections

You are right it creates them but sets the protected flag (STV_PROTECTED) which seems to be the cause of my problem. How can I tell it to set the flag as STV_DEFAULT? Thanks A On 5/28/20, 11:30 PM, "Fangrui Song" <maskray at google.com> wrote: NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know

On 2020-06-02, Moshtaghi, Alireza wrote: >Sorry for the cryptic code but I had to modify stuff from original >In the following example see the difference when you comment or uncomment the line in the linker script: >============ test.c ============= : >struct orphan_dummy_anno_s { > void (*func)(void); >}; > >static void dummy_export_dbg_log_init_f (void) __attribute__

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 12:16 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 March 2016 at 14:58, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >>> On Mar 11, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Now, there are a number of things about linkage that are kindof orthogonal, >>>> and it

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> Now, there are a number of things about linkage that are kindof orthogonal, >> and it would be nice to model them more orthogonally. That would be a major >> change in representation, though. Absent the will to do that, I propose >> that we: >> - remove/deprecate

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>> And you can't also just produce STV_PROTECTED for every symbol. I >>> would love for that to be the case, but while most ELF systems support >>> copy relocations and related PLT hacks for functions it is not >>> practical to do it. >> >> I’m

Hi all, I think using code coverage on baremetal has come up once or twice on llvmdev, but I don't think anyone has actually written up how the workflow works, or what issues come up.  This description is based on work done together with my colleague Weiming Zhao. By "baremetal" here, I mean an embedded environment without an operating system.  We specifically used a ARM target

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Chengyu Song wrote: > >> It's difficult to say without a full example, but I'm very suspicious >>> of those global declarations. I think the compiler would be entirely >>> justified in assuming you could *never* get from __start_builtin_fw to >>> __end_builtin_fw, let

Are you suggesting other linker jobs such as creating _end symbols to the linker script? The linker script support was implemented after we wrote the current Writer class, so it is somewhat "plugged in" to the Writer. It might not be the best design, and not many other options have been explored. So there might be room to improve code by moving work loads from the Writer to the

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:41 AM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com <mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>> wrote: > Okay, so, it sounds to me like LLVM basically treats strong definitions as protected, then. Should we just formalize that? > > I guess the proposal here would be: > 1.

On 6 April 2017 at 07:01, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > My understanding is that this would be (initially) limited to > fabricating enough linker script commands such that we could replace: > fixSectionAlignments() > assignAddresses() > Script->processNonSectionCommands() > > With something like: > Script->assignAddresses() // Could be done

Because orphan cleanup now happens well after the fs is all initialized and such, we can run into this problem where we find orphan entries that were just added to the fs, not ones that were added previously during a crash. This does not bode well for the system, and results in a couple of odd things happening, like truncate being run on non-regular files. In order to fix this we just check and

Hi Joel/Srini, Here are 2 patches for orphan lock in local mode. patch 1: In local mode, we don't need lvb, so don't init it. patch 2: In local mode, orphan lock and unlock don't need to go to dlm part. Regards, Tao

I booted the guest in which i was testing btrfs (transient ENOSPC issues, etc). It booted in emergency mode. [ 6.705187] device label testfs1 devid 1 transid 4141 /dev/sdb1 [ 6.724353] device label fedora devid 1 transid 2036 /dev/sda2 [ 6.780931] device label fedora devid 1 transid 2036 /dev/sda2 [ 6.817157] snd_hda_intel 0000:00:04.0: irq 42 for MSI/MSI-X [ 6.818326]

Srini, Ok, you can go ahead and cook up the background orphan cleaner. Now, we can do this in a workqueue, a thread, or a timer. I don't see why a timer doesn't work. When the timer fires, you do this: 1. Take EX on a new orphan_scan lock. 2. check the LVB for the last scan time. If it's less than the scan timeout, reset the timer for (timeout - last scan), drop the EX, and

Hi, I''m using btrfs on Ubuntu 10.10 for some test partitions. After doing some normal operations I suddenly couldn''t mount the partition anymore. I always get the error "BTRFS: inode 120790 still on the orphan list" in the kernel log again and again and it''s impossible to stop the mount command or shutdown the system. Any ideas how to work around this issue?

We''ve been seeing warnings coming out of the orphan commit stuff forever from ceph. Turns out it''s because we''re racing with checking if the orphan block reserve is set, because we clear it outside of the spin_lock. So leave the normal fastpath checks where they are, but take the spin_lock and _recheck_ to make sure we haven''t had an orphan block rsv added in

I noticed we were getting lots of warnings with xfstest 83 because we have reservations outstanding. This is because we moved the orphan add outside of the truncate, but we don''t actually cleanup our reservation if something fails. This fixes the problem and I no longer see warnings. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 2 ++ 1

I noticed while running xfstests 83 that if we didn''t have enough space to delete our inode the orphan cleanup would just loop. This is because it keeps finding the same orphan item and keeps trying to kill it but can''t because we don''t get an error back from iput for deleting the inode. So keep track of the last guy we tried to kill, if it''s the same as the

This happens on a freshly created btrfs filesystem in a raid10 (4x1TB) configuration with three subvolumes and 1.5 TB data. When I try to snapshot one of the subvolumes (with 100 GB of data), it says that the snapshot creation failed and I get the following error message: btrfs: could not do orphan cleanup -116 After the failure: - The snapshot exists in `btrfs subvolume list'' - The

In fixing how we deal with bad inodes, we had a regression in the orphan cleanup code, since it expects to get a bad inode back. So fix it to deal with getting -ESTALE back by deleting the orphan item manually and moving on. Thanks, Reported-by: Simon Kirby <sim@hostway.ca> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 36