On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 09:06, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 4/14/22 15:59, Andrew Scull wrote: > > Rename the sections used to implement linker lists so they begin with > > '__u_boot_list' rather than '.u_boot_list'. The double underscore at the > > start is still distinct from the single underscore used by the symbol > > names. > > > > Having a '.' in the section names conflicts with clang's ASAN > > instrumentation which tries to add redzones between the linker list > > elements, causing expected accesses to fail. However, clang doesn't try > > to add redzones to user sections, which are names with all alphanumeric > > and underscore characters. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Scull <asc...@google.com> > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > --- > > arch/arc/cpu/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/arm/config.mk | 4 ++-- > > arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/sunxi/u-boot-spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/u-boot-spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot-spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/arm/cpu/armv8/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/arm/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/arm/cpu/u-boot.lds | 6 ++--- > > arch/arm/mach-at91/arm926ejs/u-boot-spl.lds | 2 +- > > arch/arm/mach-at91/armv7/u-boot-spl.lds | 2 +- > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/u-boot-spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/arm/mach-orion5x/u-boot-spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/arm/mach-rockchip/u-boot-tpl-v8.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot-spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/arm/mach-zynq/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/m68k/cpu/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/microblaze/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/microblaze/cpu/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/mips/config.mk | 2 +- > > arch/mips/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/mips/cpu/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/nds32/cpu/n1213/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/nios2/cpu/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot-nand.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot-nand_spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot-spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/riscv/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/riscv/cpu/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/sandbox/config.mk | 4 ++-- > > arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/sandbox/cpu/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/sh/cpu/u-boot.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/x86/cpu/u-boot-64.lds | 6 ++--- > > arch/x86/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds | 6 ++--- > > arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds | 6 ++--- > > arch/x86/lib/elf_ia32_efi.lds | 4 ++-- > > arch/x86/lib/elf_x86_64_efi.lds | 4 ++-- > > @Simon > > This looks inconsistent. > > Why should section u_boot_list exist in elf_x86_64_efi.lds and not in > elf_riscv64_efi.lds?
For clarity, you don't mean this is a problem with this patch? But a problem with the riscv port not including linker lists in its linker script? > The sandbox is built and used on all architectures. The sandbox is built as its own "architecture" arch/sandbox that is based on something like a Linux environment rather than a hardware architecture, since sandbox runs in user space.
