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

[Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me>]

On 2022-07-18, H.J. Lu wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 8:13 PM Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> wrote:
>>
>> On 2022-07-18, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 09:18:27PM -0700, Fangrui Song wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >Then, linker should disallow copy relocation against protected symbols
>> >and non-canonical reference to canonical protected functions.
>> >
>> >Something like this.
>> >
>> >
>> >H.J.
>> >----
>> >x86: Disallow invalid relocations against protected symbols
>> >
>> >Since glibc 2.36 will issue warnings for copy relocation against
>> >protected symbols and non-canonical reference to canonical protected
>> >functions, change the linker to always disallow such relocations.
>>
>> Thanks.  When reporting relocation diagnostics, making the condition
>> stricter by removing elf_has_indirect_extern_access is the right
>> direction.
>>
>>
>> Your patch alone isn't sufficient to make -fpic -shared below work:
>
>My patch is on top of yours.

Thanks.  If you are happy with either, feel free to push them.

>> __attribute__((visibility("protected"))) void *foo() {
>>    return (void *)foo;
>> }
>>
>>
>> >bfd/
>> >
>> >       * elf32-i386.c (elf_i386_scan_relocs): Remove check for
>> >       elf_has_indirect_extern_access.
>> >       * elf64-x86-64.c (elf_x86_64_scan_relocs): Likewise.
>> >       (elf_x86_64_relocate_section): Remove check for
>> >       elf_has_no_copy_on_protected.
>> >       * elfxx-x86.c (elf_x86_allocate_dynrelocs): Check for building
>> >       executable instead of elf_has_no_copy_on_protected.
>> >       (_bfd_x86_elf_adjust_dynamic_symbol): Disallow copy relocation
>> >       against non-copyable protected symbol.
>> >       * elfxx-x86.h (SYMBOL_NO_COPYRELOC): Remove check for
>> >       elf_has_no_copy_on_protected.
>> >
>> >ld/
>> >
>> >       * testsuite/ld-i386/i386.exp: Expect linker error for PR ld/17709
>> >       test.
>> >       * testsuite/ld-i386/pr17709.rd: Removed.
>> >       * testsuite/ld-i386/pr17709.err: New file.
>> >       * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17709.rd: Removed.
>> >       * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17709.err: New file.
>> >       * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr28875-func.err: Updated.
>> >       * testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp: Expect linker error for PR
>> >       ld/17709 test.  Add tests for function pointer against protected
>> >       function.
>> >---
>> > bfd/elf32-i386.c                        |  3 +--
>> > bfd/elf64-x86-64.c                      | 10 +++-------
>> > bfd/elfxx-x86.c                         | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
>> > bfd/elfxx-x86.h                         |  3 +--
>> > ld/testsuite/ld-i386/i386.exp           |  2 +-
>> > ld/testsuite/ld-i386/pr17709.err        |  2 ++
>> > ld/testsuite/ld-i386/pr17709.rd         |  4 ----
>> > ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17709.err      |  2 ++
>> > ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17709.rd       |  4 ----
>> > ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr28875-func.err |  2 +-
>> > ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp       | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
>> > 11 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>> > create mode 100644 ld/testsuite/ld-i386/pr17709.err
>> > delete mode 100644 ld/testsuite/ld-i386/pr17709.rd
>> > create mode 100644 ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17709.err
>> > delete mode 100644 ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17709.rd
>> >
>> >diff --git a/bfd/elf32-i386.c b/bfd/elf32-i386.c
>> >index 04a972e646d..cfb0085b245 100644
>> >--- a/bfd/elf32-i386.c
>> >+++ b/bfd/elf32-i386.c
>> >@@ -1812,8 +1812,7 @@ elf_i386_scan_relocs (bfd *abfd,
>> >                     && h->type == STT_FUNC
>> >                     && eh->def_protected
>> >                     && !SYMBOL_DEFINED_NON_SHARED_P (h)
>> >-                    && h->def_dynamic
>> >-                    && elf_has_indirect_extern_access (h->root.u.def.section->owner))
>> >+                    && h->def_dynamic)
>> >                   {
>> >                     /* Disallow non-canonical reference to canonical
>> >                        protected function.  */
>> >diff --git a/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c b/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c
>> >index 3abc68a4127..62a9a22317a 100644
>> >--- a/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c
>> >+++ b/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c
>> >@@ -2255,8 +2255,7 @@ elf_x86_64_scan_relocs (bfd *abfd, struct bfd_link_info *info,
>> >                     && h->type == STT_FUNC
>> >                     && eh->def_protected
>> >                     && !SYMBOL_DEFINED_NON_SHARED_P (h)
>> >-                    && h->def_dynamic
>> >-                    && elf_has_indirect_extern_access (h->root.u.def.section->owner))
>> >+                    && h->def_dynamic)
>> >                   {
>> >                     /* Disallow non-canonical reference to canonical
>> >                        protected function.  */
>> >@@ -3156,8 +3155,7 @@ elf_x86_64_relocate_section (bfd *output_bfd,
>> >              || (h != NULL
>> >                  && !h->root.linker_def
>> >                  && !h->root.ldscript_def
>> >-                 && eh->def_protected
>> >-                 && elf_has_no_copy_on_protected (h->root.u.def.section->owner)));
>> >+                 && eh->def_protected));
>> >
>> >         if ((input_section->flags & SEC_ALLOC) != 0
>> >             && (input_section->flags & SEC_READONLY) != 0
>> >@@ -4097,9 +4095,7 @@ elf_x86_64_relocate_section (bfd *output_bfd,
>> >           {
>> >           case R_X86_64_32S:
>> >             sec = h->root.u.def.section;
>> >-            if ((info->nocopyreloc
>> >-                 || (eh->def_protected
>> >-                     && elf_has_no_copy_on_protected (h->root.u.def.section->owner)))
>> >+            if ((info->nocopyreloc || eh->def_protected)
>> >                 && !(h->root.u.def.section->flags & SEC_CODE))
>> >               return elf_x86_64_need_pic (info, input_bfd, input_section,
>> >                                           h, NULL, NULL, howto);
>> >diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-x86.c b/bfd/elfxx-x86.c
>> >index 18f3d335458..7fb972752b3 100644
>> >--- a/bfd/elfxx-x86.c
>> >+++ b/bfd/elfxx-x86.c
>> >@@ -524,8 +524,7 @@ elf_x86_allocate_dynrelocs (struct elf_link_hash_entry *h, void *inf)
>> >     {
>> >       asection *sreloc;
>> >
>> >-      if (eh->def_protected
>> >-        && elf_has_no_copy_on_protected (h->root.u.def.section->owner))
>> >+      if (eh->def_protected && bfd_link_executable (info))
>> >       {
>> >         /* Disallow copy relocation against non-copyable protected
>> >            symbol.  */
>> >@@ -3041,6 +3040,24 @@ _bfd_x86_elf_adjust_dynamic_symbol (struct bfd_link_info *info,
>> >     }
>> >   if ((h->root.u.def.section->flags & SEC_ALLOC) != 0 && h->size != 0)
>> >     {
>> >+      if (eh->def_protected && bfd_link_executable (info))
>> >+      for (p = h->dyn_relocs; p != NULL; p = p->next)
>> >+        {
>> >+          /* Disallow copy relocation against non-copyable protected
>> >+             symbol.  */
>> >+          s = p->sec->output_section;
>> >+          if (s != NULL && (s->flags & SEC_READONLY) != 0)
>> >+            {
>> >+              info->callbacks->einfo
>> >+                /* xgettext:c-format */
>> >+                (_("%F%P: %pB: copy relocation against non-copyable "
>> >+                   "protected symbol `%s' in %pB\n"),
>> >+                 p->sec->owner, h->root.root.string,
>> >+                 h->root.u.def.section->owner);
>> >+              return false;
>> >+            }
>> >+        }
>> >+
>> >       srel->size += htab->sizeof_reloc;
>> >       h->needs_copy = 1;
>> >     }
>> >diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-x86.h b/bfd/elfxx-x86.h
>> >index 77fb1ad72bc..7d23893938c 100644
>> >--- a/bfd/elfxx-x86.h
>> >+++ b/bfd/elfxx-x86.h
>> >@@ -135,12 +135,11 @@
>> >
>> > /* Should copy relocation be generated for a symbol.  Don't generate
>> >    copy relocation against a protected symbol defined in a shared
>> >-   object with GNU_PROPERTY_NO_COPY_ON_PROTECTED.  */
>> >+   object.  */
>> > #define SYMBOL_NO_COPYRELOC(INFO, EH) \
>> >   ((EH)->def_protected \
>> >    && ((EH)->elf.root.type == bfd_link_hash_defined \
>> >        || (EH)->elf.root.type == bfd_link_hash_defweak) \
>> >-   && elf_has_no_copy_on_protected ((EH)->elf.root.u.def.section->owner) \
>> >    && ((EH)->elf.root.u.def.section->owner->flags & DYNAMIC) != 0 \
>> >    && ((EH)->elf.root.u.def.section->flags & SEC_CODE) == 0)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/i386.exp b/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/i386.exp
>> >index b4f7de49fd5..0ab9c001336 100644
>> >--- a/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/i386.exp
>> >+++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/i386.exp
>> >@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ set i386tests {
>> >      "--32 -mx86-used-note=yes" {pr17709a.s} {} "libpr17709.so"}
>> >     {"PR ld/17709 (2)" "-melf_i386 tmpdir/libpr17709.so" ""
>> >      "--32 -mx86-used-note=yes"
>> >-     {pr17709b.s} {{readelf -r pr17709.rd}} "pr17709"}
>> >+     {pr17709b.s} {{ld "pr17709.err"}} "pr17709"}
>> >     {"Build pr19827a.o" "" ""
>> >      "--32 -mx86-used-note=yes" { pr19827a.S }}
>> >     {"Build pr19827b.so" "-melf_i386 -shared" ""
>> >diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/pr17709.err b/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/pr17709.err
>> >new file mode 100644
>> >index 00000000000..fa6a4bacce3
>> >--- /dev/null
>> >+++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/pr17709.err
>> >@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>> >+.*: tmpdir/pr17709b.o: copy relocation against non-copyable protected symbol `foo' in tmpdir/libpr17709.so
>> >+#...
>> >diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/pr17709.rd b/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/pr17709.rd
>> >deleted file mode 100644
>> >index 8414784b736..00000000000
>> >--- a/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/pr17709.rd
>> >+++ /dev/null
>> >@@ -1,4 +0,0 @@
>> >-
>> >-Relocation section '.rel\..*' at offset .* contains 1 entry:
>> >- Offset     Info    Type            Sym\.Value  Sym\. Name
>> >-[0-9a-f ]+R_386_COPY +[0-9a-f]+ +foo
>> >diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17709.err b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17709.err
>> >new file mode 100644
>> >index 00000000000..fa6a4bacce3
>> >--- /dev/null
>> >+++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17709.err
>> >@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>> >+.*: tmpdir/pr17709b.o: copy relocation against non-copyable protected symbol `foo' in tmpdir/libpr17709.so
>> >+#...
>> >diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17709.rd b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17709.rd
>> >deleted file mode 100644
>> >index beffd3cb34c..00000000000
>> >--- a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17709.rd
>> >+++ /dev/null
>> >@@ -1,4 +0,0 @@
>> >-
>> >-Relocation section '.rela\..*' at offset .* contains 1 entry:
>> >- +Offset +Info +Type +Symbol's Value +Symbol's Name \+ Addend
>> >-[0-9a-f ]+R_X86_64_COPY+[0-9a-f ]+ +foo \+ 0
>> >diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr28875-func.err b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr28875-func.err
>> >index 64e961cb3d4..f6f4658deaf 100644
>> >--- a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr28875-func.err
>> >+++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr28875-func.err
>> >@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
>> >-.*: tmpdir/protected-func-1b.o: non-canonical reference to canonical protected function `protected_func_1a' in tmpdir/libprotected-func-2b.so
>> >+.*: tmpdir/protected-func-1b.o: non-canonical reference to canonical protected function `protected_func_1a' in tmpdir/libprotected-func-2..so
>> > #...
>> >diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp
>> >index a096c0b9d0f..e6a834a2a61 100644
>> >--- a/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp
>> >+++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp
>> >@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ set x86_64tests {
>> >     {"PR ld/17709 (1)" "-melf_x86_64 -shared" ""
>> >      "--64" {pr17709a.s} {} "libpr17709.so"}
>> >     {"PR ld/17709 (2)" "-melf_x86_64 tmpdir/libpr17709.so" ""
>> >-     "--64" {pr17709b.s} {{readelf -rW pr17709.rd}} "pr17709"}
>> >+     "--64" {pr17709b.s} {{ld "pr17709.err"}} "pr17709"}
>> >     {"Build pr19827a.o" "" ""
>> >      "--64" { pr19827a.S }}
>> >     {"Build pr19827b.so" "-melf_x86_64 -shared" ""
>> >@@ -1383,6 +1383,22 @@ if { [isnative] && [check_compiler_available] } {
>> >           {{error_output "pr28875-func.err"}} \
>> >           "protected-func-2" \
>> >       ] \
>> >+      [list \
>> >+          "Build libprotected-func-2c.so" \
>> >+          "-shared" \
>> >+          "-fPIC -Wa,-mx86-used-note=yes" \
>> >+          { protected-func-2c.c } \
>> >+          {}  \
>> >+          "libprotected-func-2c.so" \
>> >+      ] \
>> >+      [list \
>> >+          "Build protected-func-2a without PIE" \
>> >+          "$NOPIE_LDFLAGS -Wl,--no-as-needed tmpdir/libprotected-func-2c.so" \
>> >+          "$NOPIE_CFLAGS -Wa,-mx86-used-note=yes" \
>> >+          { protected-func-1b.c } \
>> >+          {{error_output "pr28875-func.err"}} \
>> >+          "protected-func-2a" \
>> >+      ] \
>> >       [list \
>> >           "Build libprotected-data-1a.so" \
>> >           "-shared -z noindirect-extern-access" \
>> >--
>> >2.36.1
>> >
>
>
>
>-- 
>H.J.