Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] elf: Add GNU_PROPERTY_1_NEEDED check

["H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 12:27 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * H. J. Lu:
>
> >> >> For (4), I think we need to set a different flag (or perhaps even
> >> >> flags), and be really careful about what we do.  I think an output file
> >> >> that is an executable will never require indirect-extern-access, but it
> >> >
> >> > What did you mean by that?  We need to compile executable with
> >> > -fno-direct-extern-access for the whole scheme to work.
> >>
> >> indirect-extern-access imposes a requirement on executables, but
> >> building an executable to comply with the new requirements will not
> >
> > That is correct.
> >
> >> impose anything on the rest of the link.  I do not see the markup
> >> covering that.
> >
> > The absence of the marker tells ld.so that copy relocation against
> > protected symbols in the executable is incompatible with the shared
> > library with the protected symbol AND the marker.
>
> Maybe I don't completely understand the direction in which is is moving.
>
> Is the idea to phase out copy relocations in general?  Or just disable

I want to phase out copy relocation to avoid dynamic relocation on defined
protected symbols.  I want to forbid copy relocation only if it is against a
shared library with the marker.

> them for protected symbols?
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
>


-- 
H.J.