Re: [BUILD-FAILURE] linux-next: Tree for June 30

[H. Peter Anvin]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > ah, ok. So the patch below should solve this for now?
> > >
> > > is there any particular reason why we are limited to 100 sections? 
> > > (is there some ELF limitation here perhaps?)
> >
> > I would still like to know if you see significant different numbers 
> > than Kamalesh.
> > If you see a number close to 100 then OK.
> > But if you see a number say in the range of below 80 then we should 
> > dive deeper into this.
> >
> > I do not even know what the program does - never looked at it befoe
> > so why the original limit was 100 I dunno.
>
> It looks to me that the people who did the relocatable kernel code just 
> put in a magic number.  There is certainly no inherent reason for this 
> limit.
>
> What's really ugly is that this is in a host-space program!  It would 
> have been one thing if it had been in a piece of code run in a 
> restricted environment, e.g. in the decompressor, but this one runs in 
> user space on the build environment.
>
> The quick solution is to change this number to something obscenely big 
> (say 10000, but even that could be an issue if we end up doing stuff 
> like section per function); the proper solution is to turn these arrays 
> into a structure and allocate the array dynamically.

Here is a quick patch to just change the number; I'll take a quick pass 
to see how much work it'd be to allocate it dynamically.

	-hpa
diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/relocs.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/relocs.c
index edaadea..9daca63 100644
--- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/relocs.c
+++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/relocs.c
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
 #define USE_BSD
 #include <endian.h>
 
-#define MAX_SHDRS 100
+#define MAX_SHDRS 10000
 #define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0]))
 static Elf32_Ehdr ehdr;
 static Elf32_Shdr shdr[MAX_SHDRS];