From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E4143858D39 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 01:44:03 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 2E4143858D39 Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id s21so13342604pjq.4 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 18:44:03 -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=XNOZwU6t4YhDYDTasBQ5id0jOKE/UxxHLmStk86s9YE=; b=r3EwZ/NNE2kKvnqwSTx/iW6B12dG1UiY02yrRo+pDU8uoiLHx2DpG/arjrv8DGXkVw THndmV62Ecirw7uMygYHUG2Ufe5RE9h7Yg86WVbaGbtUDQmYXuGVjPKRyklvjUk5gc7G wPbUa0nQxLis0L+iHGMJB2yxJf2KO7MGxV152PVwLd45FPazCUEdlgRFgzTv7uMM4VNb UFBjNFAh9WfWl86TjMaR0+GknolC6R6Dz07MldHcvcCM8WAtKgR78kczZZcFw5jR0t5R lFPzfSVNvdTrKcIIJRQesoNYhMI+uIgPP8dlzZKbmEqNzVec0/Al5INUFELVBiW3PoSj Wx2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8DgVaNtu3u6uiPjZy7FCcNYd8qJfdJqQFry6OV31uiEHn4JOTK zBU1HZIpkYUf1y8WfEw4v9gYzSNbIaA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1s3VOiSqZYF1WOCtDN55gjO96FqrjnZhvN4wGMhYoGfS5Ryky0MJgr4J71yNDyOiWzH4zEHAg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3a85:b0:1f1:64c4:e56a with SMTP id om5-20020a17090b3a8500b001f164c4e56amr19439257pjb.139.1658195041818; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 18:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gnu-tgl-3.localdomain ([172.58.37.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g3-20020a170902e38300b0015e8d4eb1c8sm10101397ple.18.2022.07.18.18.44.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 18 Jul 2022 18:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gnu-tgl-3.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1633AC025F; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 18:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 18:44:00 -0700 From: "H.J. Lu" To: Fangrui Song Cc: Binutils Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Make protected symbols local for -shared Message-ID: References: <20220627175304.pgmjcsxopjbq3gvn@gmail.com> <20220627184645.v6dcbkucup5dz7ef@gmail.com> <20220628030756.222dg4blq2mtuh5e@gmail.com> <20220628034358.o4yuvcsp6jv6ttuj@gmail.com> <20220628041827.zsheazgudjhu5s5f@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220628041827.zsheazgudjhu5s5f@gmail.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3026.3 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 01:44:06 -0000 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. 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