On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 08:39:10AM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> >> Should we check for other data section prefixes here, like:
> >>
> >> else {
> >> snprintf(sec_name, SEC_NAME_LEN, ".rodata.%s",
> >> sym->name);
> >> if (!strcmp(sym->sec->name, sec_name))
> >> found_data = true;
> >> }
> >
> > Indeed. And also .bss.*.
> >
> >> At the same time, while we're here, what about other .text.* section
> >> prefixes?
> >
> > AFAIK, .text.* is the only one.
> >
>
> What about .text.unlikely, .text.hot (not sure if these can come alone
> or are only optimization copies) ?
Hm, I think .text.unlikely.foo is at least theoretically possible
without .text.foo. Seems "unlikely" though.
IIRC, .text.hot is used for profile-guided optimization, probably not a
concern here.
There are actually several edge cases that would cause this validation
to fail. If a module only had init/exit then it wouldn't have any
.text.foo. Or if it didn't have global data then there'd be no
.[ro]data.foo.
This function could get pretty fiddly, and honestly I'm not sure this
validation buys us much anyway. I'm thinking about just removing it
altogether...
--
Josh
