From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com (mail-pl1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5317F3858439 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:40:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5317F3858439 Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id f11so12307714plr.4 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 08:40:56 -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=liZvMrRaDg1GiENqdnkoZ26xstS+rckBOehqykQ+N9w=; b=PZbN0yYHRLy94mj2xGV1nXJNqFdLqcSsKd+rn73h51OUz9dcSbQ44ru0CmSq8rOVCw 8kMObW/wdeLMyFSXQaFge4iG7piZqOX780d65h5X7BsWUlsZzaczhvIyx1pBbGUl78nx 1+jrmkhYOddSpdDaEKl2blhU5K8eJF+dLcDGsAmdgoIRS6vJSj+sbADg7zCB9QSoazE+ dBHSHpja5ffSRRfk7ErSVPAENVZKYXxoOIzkYi7cE05Vhp2ds3iPGyElOimbh7geedge GUULYks17s6vARTAcLik5oZ4143LATSZkJt9RjPVipjIDYgFEC9f7Nrs0NYjkY4BoklB wZ5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/wfgGA3+jj+FQrBqkhggZPCADOsqd5ncvdBwRRTDwz/AyWeQhk b0pbwLEIpi+9XNE606z6prAjcYtgeSR5gslgjj3dsqkq X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sQkXXabcDpdTqvhOrNxUPA+hhhF4GISlC/ZjOmMm19kUP0R1aRoNNTac/8/krf04SBM7SSOVzBGUV8gdzQSSI= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3ec3:b0:1f1:ff45:1d3b with SMTP id rm3-20020a17090b3ec300b001f1ff451d3bmr4279458pjb.101.1658245255218; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 08:40:55 -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: <20220719040212.ikb7uragqajipypv@gmail.com> From: "H.J. Lu" Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 08:40:19 -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=-3024.3 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: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:41:00 -0000 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. 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.