From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x42a.google.com (mail-pf1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4DCA3857C4E for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 14:07:41 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B4DCA3857C4E Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id y9so10506878pff.12 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 07:07:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OI3yfYEIfECgsSMcIr4CFGEWfOI8m3m3aoBU1pyXGOo=; b=gi+cRs0x6K2bGNOcpmj+ishCQdOjfho65Je1anb3M+H4cB9Lo+44m+fuDR3tArGexG B+HaEN1Uduvfet4MkOy/fka3WMCCLpZjTh8x29IpRFgudLBvi25Yw+EYdtWzibqgblcR JuBk/WcKB9SOjevHdNs71f1Q/twnEk7AKlpoO/i913ZUqtk9a+CsmcfpZzrAx2qMShf/ BVIo36EzshNllKWSmjMxl151RlYPHRIrmqhyWRceqZpzU3qw8s+ShbPXZAh0MH350eC0 ptLR6167dLs+Pui5D8Q2IWWrviKlcc0/mCGBOKiKPNqed84S9wAv54Yj9oabgIzOZQzV 1hRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8Dx4yL2TR05fXVuiZCKK2ddslPzeSUPWTSfafFFTD4q+n9cSP/ wPWNPSnMldLbvLwXXftU7M3IaxHhSEjath5KrK0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1uKHGM5FeYoLyC5HNGWPxfA9H4mQ3Jx5etH2OZhD70HLcJ3e1ohT3oeLj8Nq+w+tuTwloHFEJVTSy+LAI79ex0= X-Received: by 2002:a63:ec47:0:b0:419:7e6d:19b5 with SMTP id r7-20020a63ec47000000b004197e6d19b5mr11362601pgj.256.1658758060546; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 07:07:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220627184645.v6dcbkucup5dz7ef@gmail.com> <20220628030756.222dg4blq2mtuh5e@gmail.com> <20220628034358.o4yuvcsp6jv6ttuj@gmail.com> <20220628041827.zsheazgudjhu5s5f@gmail.com> <20220719031310.swqdimvyxkkfvsed@gmail.com> <20220719040212.ikb7uragqajipypv@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: "H.J. Lu" Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 07:07:04 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Make protected symbols local for -shared To: Fangrui Song Cc: Binutils Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3023.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, GIT_PATCH_0, KAM_STOCKGEN, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, 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: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 14:07:47 -0000 On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 8:40 AM H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 9:02 PM Fangrui Song wrote: > > > > 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. > > I am checking in them now. I am backporting these 2 patches to 2.39 branch. > Thanks. > > > >> __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. > > > > -- > H.J. -- H.J.