User-mode Linux kernel port

Hi Jeff,

I noticed that this fix for CONFIG_STATIC_LINK=y still hasn't been merged 
yet, two months after the original report and fix.  Is there an issue with 
it that needs addressing?

	-Tim Abbott

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Tim Abbott wrote:

> Hi Linus,
> 
> The following patch fixes a regression that I caused in 2.6.32 when 
> cleaning up the um architecture's linker scripts.
> 
> I've not heard anything from the um maintainers (they have had since 
> Richard Weinberger reported that this patch fixed the problem on December 
> 22), so I'm sending this to you now (and CCing stable@ since it affects 
> 2.6.32).
> 
> 	-Tim Abbott
> 
> --
> 
> um: remove PAGE_SIZE alignment in linker script causing kernel segfault.
> 
> The linker script cleanup that I did in commit 
> 5d150a97f9391f5bcd7ba0d59d7a11c3de3cea80 accidentally introduced an 
> ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE) when converting to use INIT_TEXT_SECTION; Richard 
> Weinberger reported that this causes the kernel to segfault with 
> CONFIG_STATIC_LINK=y.
> 
> I'm not certain why this extra alignment is a problem, but it seems likely 
> it is because previously
> 
> __init_begin = _stext = _text = _sinittext 
> 
> and with the extra ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE), _sinittext becomes different from the 
> rest.  So there is likely a bug here where something is assuming that 
> _sinittext is the same as one of those other symbols.  But reverting the 
> accidental change fixes the regression, so it seems worth committing that 
> now.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tim Abbott <tabbott@...>
> Reported-by: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...>
> Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@...>
> Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@...
> ---
>  arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S b/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S
> index e7a6cca..664f942 100644
> --- a/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S
> +++ b/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ SECTIONS
>    _text = .;
>    _stext = .;
>    __init_begin = .;
> -  INIT_TEXT_SECTION(PAGE_SIZE)
> +  INIT_TEXT_SECTION(0)
>    . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE);
>  
>    .text      :
> -- 
> 1.6.5.7
>

Andrew, Linus, Jeff, ... anyone?
Please apply this patch.

CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is still broken. :(

//richard
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tim Abbott <tabbott@...>
Date: Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:08 PM
Subject: [REGRESSION] um: CONFIG_STATIC_LINK=y broken
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>
Cc: linux-kernel@..., Jeff Dike <jdike@...>,
user-mode-linux-devel@..., stable@...,
richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...>, Sam Ravnborg
<sam@...>


Hi Linus,

The following patch fixes a regression that I caused in 2.6.32 when
cleaning up the um architecture's linker scripts.

I've not heard anything from the um maintainers (they have had since
Richard Weinberger reported that this patch fixed the problem on December
22), so I'm sending this to you now (and CCing stable@ since it affects
2.6.32).

       -Tim Abbott

--

um: remove PAGE_SIZE alignment in linker script causing kernel segfault.

The linker script cleanup that I did in commit
5d150a97f9391f5bcd7ba0d59d7a11c3de3cea80 accidentally introduced an
ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE) when converting to use INIT_TEXT_SECTION; Richard
Weinberger reported that this causes the kernel to segfault with
CONFIG_STATIC_LINK=y.

I'm not certain why this extra alignment is a problem, but it seems likely
it is because previously

__init_begin = _stext = _text = _sinittext

and with the extra ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE), _sinittext becomes different from the
rest.  So there is likely a bug here where something is assuming that
_sinittext is the same as one of those other symbols.  But reverting the
accidental change fixes the regression, so it seems worth committing that
now.

Signed-off-by: Tim Abbott <tabbott@...>
Reported-by: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...>
Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@...>
Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@...
---
 arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S b/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S
index e7a6cca..664f942 100644
--- a/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S
+++ b/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ SECTIONS
  _text = .;
  _stext = .;
  __init_begin = .;
-  INIT_TEXT_SECTION(PAGE_SIZE)
+  INIT_TEXT_SECTION(0)
  . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE);

  .text      :
--
1.6.5.7

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:49, richard -rw- weinberger
<richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
> Andrew, Linus, Jeff, ... anyone?
> Please apply this patch.
>
> CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is still broken. :(

I wanted to verify Tim's patch, but after enabling CONFIG_STATIC_LINK,
it fails to link
(with or without your patch):

  LD      .tmp_vmlinux1
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.3/../../../../lib/libc.a(elf-init.o):
In function `__libc_csu_irel':(.text+0xd4): undefined reference to
`__rela_iplt_end'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.3/../../../../lib/libc.a(elf-init.o):
In function `__libc_csu_irel':
(.text+0xe5): undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_start'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.3/../../../../lib/libc.a(elf-init.o):
In function `__libc_csu_irel':
(.text+0x100): undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_start'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.3/../../../../lib/libc.a(elf-init.o):
In function `__libc_csu_irel':
(.text+0x10a): undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_start'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.3/../../../../lib/libc.a(elf-init.o):
In function `__libc_csu_irel':
(.text+0x10f): undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_start'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.3/../../../../lib/libc.a(elf-init.o):
In function `__libc_csu_irel':
(.text+0x114): undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_start'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
  KSYM    .tmp_kallsyms1.S
nm: '.tmp_vmlinux1': No such file
No valid symbol.
make[3]: *** [.tmp_kallsyms1.S] Error 1
make[2]: *** [sub-make] Error 2
make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2

This is 2.6.35-rc3 with the hweight fix.
With CONFIG_STATIC_LINK=n, it works fine.

>
> //richard
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tim Abbott <tabbott@...>
> Date: Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:08 PM
> Subject: [REGRESSION] um: CONFIG_STATIC_LINK=y broken
> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>
> Cc: linux-kernel@..., Jeff Dike <jdike@...>,
> user-mode-linux-devel@..., stable@...,
> richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...>, Sam Ravnborg
> <sam@...>
>
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> The following patch fixes a regression that I caused in 2.6.32 when
> cleaning up the um architecture's linker scripts.
>
> I've not heard anything from the um maintainers (they have had since
> Richard Weinberger reported that this patch fixed the problem on December
> 22), so I'm sending this to you now (and CCing stable@ since it affects
> 2.6.32).
>
>        -Tim Abbott
>
> --
>
> um: remove PAGE_SIZE alignment in linker script causing kernel segfault.
>
> The linker script cleanup that I did in commit
> 5d150a97f9391f5bcd7ba0d59d7a11c3de3cea80 accidentally introduced an
> ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE) when converting to use INIT_TEXT_SECTION; Richard
> Weinberger reported that this causes the kernel to segfault with
> CONFIG_STATIC_LINK=y.
>
> I'm not certain why this extra alignment is a problem, but it seems likely
> it is because previously
>
> __init_begin = _stext = _text = _sinittext
>
> and with the extra ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE), _sinittext becomes different from the
> rest.  So there is likely a bug here where something is assuming that
> _sinittext is the same as one of those other symbols.  But reverting the
> accidental change fixes the regression, so it seems worth committing that
> now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Abbott <tabbott@...>
> Reported-by: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...>
> Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@...>
> Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@...
> ---
>  arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S b/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S
> index e7a6cca..664f942 100644
> --- a/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S
> +++ b/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ SECTIONS
>   _text = .;
>   _stext = .;
>   __init_begin = .;
> -  INIT_TEXT_SECTION(PAGE_SIZE)
> +  INIT_TEXT_SECTION(0)
>   . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE);

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:49, richard -rw- weinberger
> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>> Andrew, Linus, Jeff, ... anyone?
>> Please apply this patch.
>>
>> CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is still broken. :(
>
> I wanted to verify Tim's patch, but after enabling CONFIG_STATIC_LINK,
> it fails to link
> (with or without your patch):
>

Hmm, strange. On my machine it links fine with 2.6.35-rc3 + hweight.
I'm using OpenSUSE 11.0 x86 (gcc 4.3.1, binutils 2.18.50).
My config is attached.

cheers,
//richard

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:49, richard -rw- weinberger
> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>> Andrew, Linus, Jeff, ... anyone?
>> Please apply this patch.
>>
>> CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is still broken. :(
>
> I wanted to verify Tim's patch, but after enabling CONFIG_STATIC_LINK,
> it fails to link
> (with or without your patch):
>

BTW: Does CONFIG_STATIC_LINK work for you when you revert commit
5d150a97f9391f5bcd7ba0d59d7a11c3de3cea80 (um: Clean up linker script
using standard macros)?

Cheers,
//richard

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 04:27:31PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:49, richard -rw- weinberger
> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
> > Andrew, Linus, Jeff, ... anyone?
> > Please apply this patch.
> >
> > CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is still broken. :(
> 
> I wanted to verify Tim's patch, but after enabling CONFIG_STATIC_LINK,
> it fails to link
> (with or without your patch):

I had this patch applied to the debian package for quite some time:

it came from Jeff initially, but it's definitely unrelated....

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494995
Fix symbol clash between libc and the kernel.

Index: linux-source-2.6.30/arch/um/Makefile
===================================================================
--- linux-source-2.6.30.orig/arch/um/Makefile	2009-07-07 21:18:57.964418085 +0900
+++ linux-source-2.6.30/arch/um/Makefile	2009-07-07 21:19:34.828766443 +0900
@@ -66,7 +66,8 @@
 # defines more robust
 
 KERNEL_DEFINES = $(strip -Derrno=kernel_errno -Dsigprocmask=kernel_sigprocmask \
-			 -Dmktime=kernel_mktime $(ARCH_KERNEL_DEFINES))
+			 -Dmktime=kernel_mktime -Dstrrchr=kernel_strrchr \
+			 $(ARCH_KERNEL_DEFINES))
 KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(KERNEL_DEFINES)
 
 PHONY += linux

-- 
mattia
:wq!

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 17:22, richard -rw- weinberger
<richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@...> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:49, richard -rw- weinberger
>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>> Andrew, Linus, Jeff, ... anyone?
>>> Please apply this patch.
>>>
>>> CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is still broken. :(
>>
>> I wanted to verify Tim's patch, but after enabling CONFIG_STATIC_LINK,
>> it fails to link
>> (with or without your patch):
>>
>
> BTW: Does CONFIG_STATIC_LINK work for you when you revert commit
> 5d150a97f9391f5bcd7ba0d59d7a11c3de3cea80 (um: Clean up linker script
> using standard macros)?

Still the same linking errors ;-(

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 17:22, richard -rw- weinberger
> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> <geert@...> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:49, richard -rw- weinberger
>>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>>> Andrew, Linus, Jeff, ... anyone?
>>>> Please apply this patch.
>>>>
>>>> CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is still broken. :(
>>>
>>> I wanted to verify Tim's patch, but after enabling CONFIG_STATIC_LINK,
>>> it fails to link
>>> (with or without your patch):
>>>
>>
>> BTW: Does CONFIG_STATIC_LINK work for you when you revert commit
>> 5d150a97f9391f5bcd7ba0d59d7a11c3de3cea80 (um: Clean up linker script
>> using standard macros)?
>
> Still the same linking errors ;-(
>

Are you using a non-x86 environment?
Maybe CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is more broken than i thought.

Cheers,
//richard

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 19:50, richard -rw- weinberger
<richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@...> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 17:22, richard -rw- weinberger
>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>> <geert@...> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:49, richard -rw- weinberger
>>>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>>>> Andrew, Linus, Jeff, ... anyone?
>>>>> Please apply this patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is still broken. :(
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to verify Tim's patch, but after enabling CONFIG_STATIC_LINK,
>>>> it fails to link
>>>> (with or without your patch):
>>>>
>>>
>>> BTW: Does CONFIG_STATIC_LINK work for you when you revert commit
>>> 5d150a97f9391f5bcd7ba0d59d7a11c3de3cea80 (um: Clean up linker script
>>> using standard macros)?
>>
>> Still the same linking errors ;-(
>>
>
> Are you using a non-x86 environment?
> Maybe CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is more broken than i thought.

I'm using amd64 on Ubuntu 10.04.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 19:50, richard -rw- weinberger
> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> <geert@...> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 17:22, richard -rw- weinberger
>>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>>> <geert@...> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:49, richard -rw- weinberger
>>>>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew, Linus, Jeff, ... anyone?
>>>>>> Please apply this patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is still broken. :(
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to verify Tim's patch, but after enabling CONFIG_STATIC_LINK,
>>>>> it fails to link
>>>>> (with or without your patch):
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW: Does CONFIG_STATIC_LINK work for you when you revert commit
>>>> 5d150a97f9391f5bcd7ba0d59d7a11c3de3cea80 (um: Clean up linker script
>>>> using standard macros)?
>>>
>>> Still the same linking errors ;-(
>>>
>>
>> Are you using a non-x86 environment?
>> Maybe CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is more broken than i thought.
>
> I'm using amd64 on Ubuntu 10.04.
>

On my CentOS 5 x86_64 i get no linking error.
Sadly I don't have a 64bits Ubuntu machine.

-- 
Cheers,
//richard

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 19:50, richard -rw- weinberger
> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> <geert@...> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 17:22, richard -rw- weinberger
>>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>>> <geert@...> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:49, richard -rw- weinberger
>>>>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew, Linus, Jeff, ... anyone?
>>>>>> Please apply this patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is still broken. :(
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to verify Tim's patch, but after enabling CONFIG_STATIC_LINK,
>>>>> it fails to link
>>>>> (with or without your patch):
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW: Does CONFIG_STATIC_LINK work for you when you revert commit
>>>> 5d150a97f9391f5bcd7ba0d59d7a11c3de3cea80 (um: Clean up linker script
>>>> using standard macros)?
>>>
>>> Still the same linking errors ;-(
>>>
>>
>> Are you using a non-x86 environment?
>> Maybe CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is more broken than i thought.
>
> I'm using amd64 on Ubuntu 10.04.
>

Can please you test this patch?
http://groups.google.com/group/fa.linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/03cd264b00551949?pli=1


-- 
Cheers,
//richard

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 00:23, richard -rw- weinberger
<richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@...> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 19:50, richard -rw- weinberger
>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>> <geert@...> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 17:22, richard -rw- weinberger
>>>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>>>> <geert@...> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:49, richard -rw- weinberger
>>>>>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrew, Linus, Jeff, ... anyone?
>>>>>>> Please apply this patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is still broken. :(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wanted to verify Tim's patch, but after enabling CONFIG_STATIC_LINK,
>>>>>> it fails to link
>>>>>> (with or without your patch):
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: Does CONFIG_STATIC_LINK work for you when you revert commit
>>>>> 5d150a97f9391f5bcd7ba0d59d7a11c3de3cea80 (um: Clean up linker script
>>>>> using standard macros)?
>>>>
>>>> Still the same linking errors ;-(
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you using a non-x86 environment?
>>> Maybe CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is more broken than i thought.
>>
>> I'm using amd64 on Ubuntu 10.04.
>>
>
> Can please you test this patch?
> http://groups.google.com/group/fa.linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/03cd264b00551949?pli=1

Matthew's patch fixes the linking problem for me.

Interestingly, CONFIG_STATIC_LINK=y now boots fine for me, with and
without Tim's patch?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 00:23, richard -rw- weinberger
> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> <geert@...> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 19:50, richard -rw- weinberger
>>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>>> <geert@...> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 17:22, richard -rw- weinberger
>>>>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>>>>> <geert@...> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:49, richard -rw- weinberger
>>>>>>> <richard.weinberger@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Andrew, Linus, Jeff, ... anyone?
>>>>>>>> Please apply this patch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is still broken. :(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wanted to verify Tim's patch, but after enabling CONFIG_STATIC_LINK,
>>>>>>> it fails to link
>>>>>>> (with or without your patch):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW: Does CONFIG_STATIC_LINK work for you when you revert commit
>>>>>> 5d150a97f9391f5bcd7ba0d59d7a11c3de3cea80 (um: Clean up linker script
>>>>>> using standard macros)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Still the same linking errors ;-(
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you using a non-x86 environment?
>>>> Maybe CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is more broken than i thought.
>>>
>>> I'm using amd64 on Ubuntu 10.04.
>>>
>>
>> Can please you test this patch?
>> http://groups.google.com/group/fa.linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/03cd264b00551949?pli=1
>
> Matthew's patch fixes the linking problem for me.
>
> Interestingly, CONFIG_STATIC_LINK=y now boots fine for me, with and
> without Tim's patch?

Tim's patch fixes the issue on x86 and Matthew's patch fixes it on amd64.
I'll combine both patches and test them also on some other archs.

-- 
Cheers,
//richard

Andrew,

Please apply this patch.

--
Hi Linus,

The following patch fixes a regression that I caused in 2.6.32 when 
cleaning up the um architecture's linker scripts.

I've not heard anything from the um maintainers (they have had since 
Richard Weinberger reported that this patch fixed the problem on December 
22), so I'm sending this to you now (and CCing stable@ since it affects 
2.6.32).

        -Tim Abbott

--

um: remove PAGE_SIZE alignment in linker script causing kernel segfault.

The linker script cleanup that I did in commit 
5d150a97f9391f5bcd7ba0d59d7a11c3de3cea80 accidentally introduced an 
ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE) when converting to use INIT_TEXT_SECTION; Richard 
Weinberger reported that this causes the kernel to segfault with 
CONFIG_STATIC_LINK=y.

I'm not certain why this extra alignment is a problem, but it seems likely 
it is because previously

__init_begin = _stext = _text = _sinittext 

and with the extra ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE), _sinittext becomes different from the 
rest.  So there is likely a bug here where something is assuming that 
_sinittext is the same as one of those other symbols.  But reverting the 
accidental change fixes the regression, so it seems worth committing that 
now.

Signed-off-by: Tim Abbott <tabbott@...>
Reported-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@...>
Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@...>
Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@...
---
 arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S b/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S
index e7a6cca..664f942 100644
--- a/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S
+++ b/arch/um/kernel/uml.lds.S
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ SECTIONS
   _text = .;
   _stext = .;
   __init_begin = .;
-  INIT_TEXT_SECTION(PAGE_SIZE)
+  INIT_TEXT_SECTION(0)
   . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE);
 
   .text      :
-- 
1.6.5.7

-- 
Thanks,
//richard