x86, um: actually mark system call tables readonly

Commit a074335a370e ("x86, um: Mark system call tables readonly") was
supposed to mark the sys_call_table in UML as RO by adding the const,
but it doesn't have the desired effect as it's nevertheless being placed
into the data section since __cacheline_aligned enforces sys_call_table
being placed into .data..cacheline_aligned instead. We need to use
the ____cacheline_aligned version instead to fix this issue.

Before:

$ nm -v arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_64.o | grep -1 "sys_call_table"
                 U sys_writev
0000000000000000 D sys_call_table
0000000000000000 D syscall_table_size

After:

$ nm -v arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_64.o | grep -1 "sys_call_table"
                 U sys_writev
0000000000000000 R sys_call_table
0000000000000000 D syscall_table_size

Fixes: a074335a370e ("x86, um: Mark system call tables readonly")
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>

diff --git a/arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_32.c b/arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_32.c
index 531d426..bd16d6c 100644 (file)
--- a/arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_32.c
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ typedef asmlinkage void (*sys_call_ptr_t)(void);
 
 extern asmlinkage void sys_ni_syscall(void);
 
-const sys_call_ptr_t sys_call_table[] __cacheline_aligned = {
+const sys_call_ptr_t sys_call_table[] ____cacheline_aligned = {
        /*
         * Smells like a compiler bug -- it doesn't work
         * when the & below is removed.

diff --git a/arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_64.c b/arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_64.c
index 20c3649..5cdfa9d 100644 (file)
--- a/arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_64.c
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ typedef void (*sys_call_ptr_t)(void);
 
 extern void sys_ni_syscall(void);
 
-const sys_call_ptr_t sys_call_table[] __cacheline_aligned = {
+const sys_call_ptr_t sys_call_table[] ____cacheline_aligned = {
        /*
         * Smells like a compiler bug -- it doesn't work
         * when the & below is removed.