From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-f175.google.com (mail-pf1-f175.google.com [209.85.210.175]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A125D3858D39 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 04:02:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A125D3858D39 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=maskray.me Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pf1-f175.google.com with SMTP id 70so12442433pfx.1 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 21:02:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ONmgyYCXwL0Ieggv4TbLMPcjn0woDIQoeMGaqScSbzA=; b=JXrktZlN42sgWqrhhu3sP1vIgFFkWnAIcotGD22gPA+N4CiuRh1UdIJCRtWKrY42J5 oh0aGZGOrD5Wo8gP61r/SdhuoXquTfr4NDGqh2b/16+W8vbgxr6rB8dOyWU98RbYuTy4 rED/aRWcFS6IGZ3N55P8nAiJm+CMUEAnO1ezj5uRS0C/fWDC6UIuuI+oI9QTmbPpXIWA 7i89g+Ja+42VVxN9dxYMXqab+8S26KMye5DelMx2TPhfHMkCX0jAeP1T25a/vZlD3AtZ IfN/K58sB10rGjklBSOCBxyTAOL4G3SJ+A2s3BsMVsqJx7Epos1wPxqPMWJXcrXtnOAt oCew== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8gV/CtDQuVGBYqLPN6Dmt4k42e6DURi933ViTywD3dtgTjZmj5 g5muxZ1iRrnEFqxN4Jv01XuxTZb3TeY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vnXArf/HEiflG18EzUYBiguLAhjTnuXpWbKhQLozWBxCWgvir2D9lw9P9FQxPEdVTVOm9yyA== X-Received: by 2002:a65:4c0b:0:b0:415:d3a4:44d1 with SMTP id u11-20020a654c0b000000b00415d3a444d1mr27898351pgq.191.1658203333413; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 21:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2601:647:6300:b760:4b86:71ca:6833:31d2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a1-20020aa794a1000000b0052ac12e7596sm10087230pfl.114.2022.07.18.21.02.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 18 Jul 2022 21:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 21:02:12 -0700 From: Fangrui Song To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Binutils Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Make protected symbols local for -shared Message-ID: <20220719040212.ikb7uragqajipypv@gmail.com> References: <20220627184645.v6dcbkucup5dz7ef@gmail.com> <20220628030756.222dg4blq2mtuh5e@gmail.com> <20220628034358.o4yuvcsp6jv6ttuj@gmail.com> <20220628041827.zsheazgudjhu5s5f@gmail.com> <20220719031310.swqdimvyxkkfvsed@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN, FREEMAIL_FROM, GIT_PATCH_0, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ, KAM_STOCKGEN, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: binutils@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Binutils mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 04:02:20 -0000 On 2022-07-18, H.J. Lu wrote: >On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 8:13 PM Fangrui Song 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 wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > On 2022-06-27, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> > > >On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:07 PM Fangrui Song wrote: >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> On 2022-06-27, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> > > >> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:46 AM Fangrui Song wrote: >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> On 2022-06-27, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> > > >> >> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:53 AM Fangrui Song wrote: >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> On 2022-06-27, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> > > >> >> >> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:09 AM Fangrui Song wrote: >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On 2022-06-27, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 12:03 PM Fangrui Song wrote: >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> On 2022-06-26, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 10:44 AM Fangrui Song 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.