Re: [PATCH] x86: Make protected symbols local for -shared

[Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me>]

On 2022-06-27, H.J. Lu wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:44 PM Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> wrote:
>>
>> On 2022-06-27, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:07 PM Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2022-06-27, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:46 AM Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 2022-06-27, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> >> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:53 AM Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On 2022-06-27, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:09 AM Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On 2022-06-27, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 12:03 PM Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> On 2022-06-26, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 10:44 AM Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Call _bfd_elf_symbol_refs_local_p with local_protected==true.  This has
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2 noticeable effects for -shared:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> * GOT-generating relocations referencing a protected data symbol no
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>   longer lead to a GLOB_DAT (similar to a hidden symbol).
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> * Direct access relocations (e.g. R_X86_64_PC32) no longer has the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>   confusing diagnostic below.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>     __attribute__((visibility("protected"))) void *foo() {
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>       return (void *)foo;
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>     }
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>     // gcc -fpic -shared -fuse-ld=bfd
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>     relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against protected symbol `foo' can not be used when making a shared object
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> The new behavior matches arm, aarch64 (commit
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> 83c325007c5599fa9b60b8d5f7b84842160e1d1b), and powerpc ports, and other
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> linkers: gold and ld.lld.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Note: if some code tries to use direct access relocations to take the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> address of foo, the pointer equality will break, but the error should be
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> reported on the executable link, not on the innocent shared object link.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> glibc 2.36 will give a warning at relocation resolving time.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >It should be controlled by -z [no]indirect-extern-access.   Can you enable
>> >> >> >> >> >> >-z  indirect-extern-access with -shared by default instead?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> If I set `link_info.indirect_extern_access = 1;` in ld/ldmain.c,
>> >> >> >> >> >> bfd/elf-properties.c:654 will create a
>> >> >> >> >> >> GNU_PROPERTY_1_NEEDED_INDIRECT_EXTERN_ACCESS note.
>> >> >> >> >> >> This will probably be unexpected (and check-ld will have 280+ failures).
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >This is normal when the default behavior is changed.  You can pass
>> >> >> >> >> >-z noindirect-extern-access to these testcases.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Adding GNU_PROPERTY_1_NEEDED_INDIRECT_EXTERN_ACCESS will be a
>> >> >> >> >> significant behavior change and may unnecessarily break user programs
>> >> >> >> >> (glibc will report an error instead of a warning).
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >If glibc reports an error, it is a real bug with unknown consequences
>> >> >> >> >when the copy in the executable is out of sync with the protected
>> >> >> >> >symbol in the shared library,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Not necessary.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In glibc, GNU_PROPERTY_1_NEEDED_INDIRECT_EXTERN_ACCESS has two effects,
>> >> >> >> 1 (copy relocations) and 2 (non-zero value of an undefined function
>> >> >> >> symbol) on
>> >> >> >> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2022-June/139552.html
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 2 does not necessarily cause a problem. In many cases it doesn't as
>> >> >> >> function pointer equality is not an invariant a program relies upon
>> >> >> >> (at least, for many functions, the property is not used). My previous
>> >> >> >> comment has mentioned two cases.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 1 likely causes a problem, but technically the shared object can define
>> >> >> >> a protected data symbol without accessing it..
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >These are unknown consequences.   We don't know what the worst
>> >> >> >cases are.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They are, just like when a shared object is linked with -Bsymbolic.
>> >> >
>> >> >They have to deal with it since it is done on purpose.
>> >> >
>> >> >> This patch focuses on changing the x86 default to a sane value (matching
>> >> >> aarch64/arm/powerpc64/riscv/etc) and enabling future removal of
>> >> >> `extern_protected_data`.  If you want to switch to
>> >> >> indirect-extern-access default for x86, while I think unnecessary, I will not object.
>> >> >
>> >> >extern_protected_data can be safely removed only when
>> >> >direct access to external symbols are disallowed.   We can't
>> >> >have both ways.
>> >>
>> >> Just define has_no_copy_on_protected to 1 to catch the usage at link
>> >
>> >This is the same as using -z indirect-extern-access on executable.
>> >
>> >> time.  ld's aarch64 port has such an error by default.  gold and ld.lld
>> >> has such an error for a long time now.
>> >>
>> >> We don't need to worry about whether this stricter behavior breaks user
>> >> programs.  As is, protected symbol using GCC+binutils provides no
>> >> benefit.  Programs just avoid protected data symbols.
>> >
>> >Then there should be no problems with
>> >GNU_PROPERTY_1_NEEDED_INDIRECT_EXTERN_ACCESS.
>> >I'd like to disallow copy relocation on protected symbols at run-time
>> >when there are unknown consequences.
>>
>> Enabling GNU_PROPERTY_1_NEEDED_INDIRECT_EXTERN_ACCESS for x86 by default
>> has these effects:
>>
>> * 280+ check-ld tests will fail
>
>They should be updated.

That will be a huge effort and may not be so necessary. See below.

>> * The GNU_PROPERTY_1_NEEDED_INDIRECT_EXTERN_ACCESS note appears
>
>It will disallow copy relocation on protected symbols at run-time.
>
>>    redundant. It encodes an intention explicit but the intention is
>>    in ld aarch64, gold (all ports), and lld (all ports) with no extra option.
>>
>> IMO, we should do these:
>>
>> * push this commit
>> * treat elf_has_no_copy_on_protected as always true and remove all GNU_PROPERTY_NO_COPY_ON_PROTECTED
>>
>> Again, I understand that there is concern about protected data symbols
>> in shared object.  But as is, nobody uses protected symbols in shared objects.
>> My
>>
>>    // gcc -fpic -shared -fuse-ld=bfd
>>    __attribute__((visibility("protected"))) void *foo() {
>>      return (void *)foo;
>>    }
>>
>> example indicates that protected future symbol is also broken.
>
>To get protected symbol to work properly on x86-64, copy relocation on protected
>symbols should be disallowed at run-time.

Yes that GNU_PROPERTY_1_NEEDED_INDIRECT_EXTERN_ACCESS will change the
glibc warning to an error, but we don't need to hurry making the cases
an error.  Since protected symbols do not have performance benefits (in
gcc's many ports and GNU ld's x86 port), people avoid using it.  My
advise is to just let ld stop producing executables which will trigger
glibc warning/error (this has precedent in gold and ld.lld and FreeBSD's
adoption of ld.lld means that this goes actually very well).  Projects
will gradually fix their builds to enable indirect external access in
the rare case they encounter protected symbols in shared objects.  Then
in a few years, the glibc warning can naturally upgrade to an error,
with possibly a method (e.g. similar to LD_DYNAMIC_WEAK) to downgrade to
a warning.  Finally, remove the opt-out method.

With this scheme no GNU property is needed.

>>
>>
>> >> >> But I'd note that we aren't really ready for the GNU_PROPERTY_1_NEEDED_INDIRECT_EXTERN_ACCESS default.
>> >> >> One major issue: -fPIE is widely used nowadays and GCC>=5 has the PIE copy relocation "regression".
>> >> >
>> >> >-fno-PIE still has copy relocation.
>> >>
>> >> On a Linux distribution, -fno-PIE objects have largely vanished (due to PIE hardening).
>> >> So for many shared objects protected symbols can start to be used.
>> >>
>> >> For the very few -fno-PIE exceptions, ask them to add an option. (This
>> >> is similar to: distros keep pushing new security hardening options and
>> >> some projects need to opt out them.)
>> >>
>> >> >> (My https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/596678.html
>> >> >> will fix it for future GCC, but the patch seems to get stuck since 2021-05-11.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> If the executable takes the address of a protected function defined in a
>> >> >> >> >> shared object, it may or may not cause a pointer equality problem (the
>> >> >> >> >> shared object may not take the address) and the problem (if exists) may or
>> >> >> >> >> may not be a broken invariance to the program (it may not expect pointer
>> >> >> >> >> equality).
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> All of aarch64/arm/powerpc64/riscv (likely most except x86, but I
>> >> >> >> >> haven't enumerated) consider a protected data symbol local in -shared
>> >> >> >> >> links. x86 did so a while ago (before 2015?).  (For
>> >> >> >> >> aarch64/arm/powerpc64/riscv, I wish that we never need
>> >> >> >> >> GNU_PROPERTY_1_NEEDED_INDIRECT_EXTERN_ACCESS. The property will just
>> >> >> >> >> waste some bytes in every shared object without carrying much
>> >> >> >> >> information.)
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The 280+ failures in check-ld due to the default
>> >> >> >> >> GNU_PROPERTY_1_NEEDED_INDIRECT_EXTERN_ACCESS need to be considered as
>> >> >> >> >> well.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> With this change, `#define elf_backend_extern_protected_data 1` is no
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> longer effective.  Just remove it.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Remove the test "Run protected-func-1 without PIE" since -fno-pic
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> address taken operation in the executable doesn't work with protected
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> symbol in a shared object by default.  Similarly, remove
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> protected-data-1a and protected-data-1b.  protected-data-1b can be made
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> working by removing HAVE_LD_PIE_COPYRELOC from GCC
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> (https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/596678.html).
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  bfd/elf32-i386.c                      |  1 -
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  bfd/elf64-x86-64.c                    |  1 -
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  bfd/elfxx-x86.c                       |  2 +-
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected1.d     |  4 +++-
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected3.d     |  2 +-
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected6a.d    |  4 +++-
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr24151a-x32.d |  4 +++-
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr24151a.d     |  4 +++-
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected1.d   |  4 +++-
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected3.d   |  2 +-
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected6a.d  |  4 +++-
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected7a.d  |  4 +++-
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp     | 27 ---------------------------
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  13 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/bfd/elf32-i386.c b/bfd/elf32-i386.c
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index e4106d9fd3b..c3c46795731 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/bfd/elf32-i386.c
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/bfd/elf32-i386.c
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -4424,7 +4424,6 @@ elf_i386_link_setup_gnu_properties (struct bfd_link_info *info)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #define elf_backend_got_header_size    12
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #define elf_backend_plt_alignment      4
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #define elf_backend_dtrel_excludes_plt 1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -#define elf_backend_extern_protected_data 1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #define elf_backend_caches_rawsize     1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #define elf_backend_want_dynrelro      1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c b/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index 6154a70bdd7..aaa5f1496b9 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -5275,7 +5275,6 @@ elf_x86_64_special_sections[]=
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #define elf_backend_got_header_size        (GOT_ENTRY_SIZE*3)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #define elf_backend_rela_normal                    1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #define elf_backend_plt_alignment          4
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -#define elf_backend_extern_protected_data   1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #define elf_backend_caches_rawsize         1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #define elf_backend_dtrel_excludes_plt     1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #define elf_backend_want_dynrelro          1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-x86.c b/bfd/elfxx-x86.c
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index acb2cc8528d..18f3d335458 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/bfd/elfxx-x86.c
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/bfd/elfxx-x86.c
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -3094,7 +3094,7 @@ _bfd_x86_elf_link_symbol_references_local (struct bfd_link_info *info,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>       2. When building executable, there is no dynamic linker.  Or
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>       3. or "-z nodynamic-undefined-weak" is used.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>     */
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -  if (SYMBOL_REFERENCES_LOCAL (info, h)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  if (_bfd_elf_symbol_refs_local_p (h, info, 1)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>        || (h->root.type == bfd_link_hash_undefweak
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>           && (ELF_ST_VISIBILITY (h->other) != STV_DEFAULT
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>               || (bfd_link_executable (info)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected1.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected1.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index a3cb5cef140..531645b8fe8 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected1.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected1.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #as: --32
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #ld: -shared -melf_i386
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -#error: .*relocation R_386_GOTOFF against protected function `foo' can not be used when making a shared object
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#readelf: -rW
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +There are no relocations in this file.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected3.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected3.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index c3a6888d900..77367c4738f 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected3.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected3.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  Disassembly of section .text:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  0+[a-f0-9]+ <bar>:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -[      ]*[a-f0-9]+:    8b 81 [a-f0-9][a-f0-9] [a-f0-9][a-f0-9] ff ff           mov    -0x[a-f0-9]+\(%ecx\),%eax
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +[      ]*[a-f0-9]+:    8d 81 00 00 00 00       lea    0x0\(%ecx\),%eax
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  [      ]*[a-f0-9]+:    8b 00                   mov    \(%eax\),%eax
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  [      ]*[a-f0-9]+:    c3                      ret
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #pass
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected6a.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected6a.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index 7dc350432f4..4d3873239f9 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected6a.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/protected6a.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #source: protected6.s
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #as: --32
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #ld: -shared -melf_i386
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -#error: .*relocation R_386_GOTOFF against protected data `foo' can not be used when making a shared object
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#readelf: -rW
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +There are no relocations in this file.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr24151a-x32.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr24151a-x32.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index 130611ddf49..1f49b655f7d 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr24151a-x32.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr24151a-x32.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #source: pr24151a.s
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #as: --x32
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #ld: -shared -melf32_x86_64
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -#error: .*relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against protected symbol `foo' can not be used when making a shared object
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#readelf: -rW
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +There are no relocations in this file.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr24151a.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr24151a.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index 783b85a1a6f..6c48e383e01 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr24151a.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr24151a.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #as: --64
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #ld: -shared -melf_x86_64
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -#error: .*relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against protected symbol `foo' can not be used when making a shared object
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#readelf: -rW
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +There are no relocations in this file.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected1.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected1.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index 783b85a1a6f..6c48e383e01 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected1.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected1.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #as: --64
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #ld: -shared -melf_x86_64
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -#error: .*relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against protected symbol `foo' can not be used when making a shared object
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#readelf: -rW
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +There are no relocations in this file.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected3.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected3.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index 57950e4d6b6..ba63991582f 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected3.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected3.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  Disassembly of section .text:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  0+[a-f0-9]+ <bar>:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -[      ]*[a-f0-9]+:    48 8b 05 ([0-9a-f]{2} ){4} *    mov    0x[a-f0-9]+\(%rip\),%rax        # [a-f0-9]+ <.*>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +[      ]*[a-f0-9]+:    48 8d 05 ([0-9a-f]{2} ){4} *    lea    0x[a-f0-9]+\(%rip\),%rax        # [a-f0-9]+ <.*>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  [      ]*[a-f0-9]+:    8b 00                   mov    \(%rax\),%eax
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  [      ]*[a-f0-9]+:    c3                      ret
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #pass
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected6a.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected6a.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index 3a7963ffd2f..50d6430b577 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected6a.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected6a.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #source: protected6.s
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #as: --64
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #ld: -shared -melf_x86_64
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -#error: .*relocation R_X86_64_GOTOFF64 against protected data `foo' can not be used when making a shared object
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#readelf: -rW
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +There are no relocations in this file.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected7a.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected7a.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index 3082084a7b8..3974246a2a8 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected7a.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/protected7a.d
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #source: protected7.s
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #as: --64
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>  #ld: -shared -melf_x86_64
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -#error: .*relocation R_X86_64_GOTOFF64 against protected function `foo' can not be used when making a shared object
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#readelf: -rW
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +#...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +There are no relocations in this file.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> index 5e5636bcebe..a096c0b9d0f 100644
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -1832,15 +1832,6 @@ if { [isnative] && [check_compiler_available] } {
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>             "pr23997" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>             "pass.out" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>         ] \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -       [list \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "Run protected-func-1 without PIE" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "$NOPIE_LDFLAGS -Wl,--no-as-needed tmpdir/libprotected-func-1.so" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "-Wa,-mx86-used-note=yes" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           { protected-func-1b.c } \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "protected-func-1a" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "pass.out" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "$NOPIE_CFLAGS" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -       ] \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>         [list \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>             "Run protected-func-1 with PIE" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>             "-Wl,--no-as-needed -pie tmpdir/libprotected-func-1.so" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -1904,24 +1895,6 @@ if { [isnative] && [check_compiler_available] } {
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>             "pass.out" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>             "-fPIE" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>         ] \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -       [list \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "Run protected-data-1a without PIE" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "$NOPIE_LDFLAGS -Wl,--no-as-needed tmpdir/libprotected-data-1a.so" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "-Wa,-mx86-used-note=yes" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           { protected-data-1b.c } \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "protected-data-1a" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "pass.out" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "$NOPIE_CFLAGS" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -       ] \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -       [list \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "Run protected-data-1b with PIE" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "-Wl,--no-as-needed -pie tmpdir/libprotected-data-1a.so" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "-Wa,-mx86-used-note=yes" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           { protected-data-1b.c } \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "protected-data-1b" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "pass.out" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -           "-fPIE" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -       ] \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>         [list \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>             "Run protected-data-2a without PIE" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>             "$NOPIE_LDFLAGS -Wl,--no-as-needed tmpdir/libprotected-data-2a.so" \
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2.37
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >--
>> >> >> >> >> >> >H.J.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >--
>> >> >> >> >> >H.J.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >--
>> >> >> >> >H.J.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >--
>> >> >> >H.J.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >> >H.J.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >H.J.
>
>
>
>-- 
>H.J.