From: Sudakshina Das <Sudi.Das@arm.com>
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
"nickc@redhat.com" <nickc@redhat.com>,
Peter Smith <peter.smith@linaro.org>
Cc: "binutils@sourceware.org" <binutils@sourceware.org>,
nd <nd@arm.com>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, BFD, LD, AArch64, 0/4] Add support for AArch64 BTI and PAC in the linker
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:36:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae7f9d6b-c3af-2c71-10a4-d9e5a0804720@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <655468ab-acdb-b987-075e-0ad6491d5d9c@arm.com>
Hi
On 08/03/2019 12:44, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 08/03/2019 12:32, Nick Clifton wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>>>> Given this conversation, maybe renaming --bti to --force-bti would
>>>> express the intention clearer ?
>>
>> Yes - I rather like that idea.
>>
>>> Indeed warnings can be ignored in most cases, particularly when there
>>> aren't too many. In a large project the output could be large enough
>>> to drown out other possibly more important warnings though.
>>
>> Although I would suggest that warnings from the linker are a relatively
>> rare occurrence. Unlike say a compiler ... :-)
>>
>> In answer to Szabolcs's question:
>>
>>> does -z ibt warn on x86_64?
>>
>> No - it does not. On the other hand, it does not force the enablement
>> of ibt either. In fact it appears to operate in the other way. Linking
>> x86 binaries without specifying "-z ibt" or "-z ibtplt" on the command
>> line will stop the linker from creating IBT enabled PLT entries, even if
>> all of the input object files would support them.
>
> Maybe that comes automatically from the compiler driver though a quick
> grep doesn't find me anything in the x86 backend.
>
My understanding on this is a bit different though! Take
property-x86-ibt4.d test for example where a source without IBT note is
linked with -z ibt and it gives out an IBT note (and no error/warning).
Have I missed something?
>>
>>
>> So - if we want to have the same behaviour in the AArch64 linker as we
>> currently have in the x86_64 linker, then how about this:
>
> Speaking for myself, that's a nice to have. I am all for commonality but
> if one choice is a better technical one and lesser work overall (see
> below) , it may make sense to revisit the x86 decision but that's not my
> call :)
>
>
>>
>> * Without any specific command line options BTI and PAC are not
>> enabled. (Ie the dynamic tags are not added to the dynamic section).
>
> But that in my book feels like more porting work for packagers - surely
> adding a linker flag to default passing on the flags from input object
> files to output ones is more work for all the packagers in the world.
>
> I would prefer that if all input object files were marked with the BTI,
> the output had the flags on by default. If there was a missing object
> file, the linker should not mark the output file as BTI aware but should
> (up for grabs) warn that the link step missed things out. As you say
> linker warnings are rarer than compiler warnings and hopefully folks
> would pay attention.
>
Personally I would also prefer if the default behavior for the linker is
also to do BTI markings without any user options. But this does mean
that we are going a different way from the existing x86_64 behavior.
> It's only when things go wrong that folks have to intervene to
> investigate / diagnose issues. Otherwise we'd be scratching our heads or
> have to add an additional configure flag to get this default behaviour ?
>
>
>>
>> * With --bti specified, BTI is enabled in the output provided that
>> the BTI note was found in all of the input files. If one or more
>> input files are missing the note, BTI is not enabled, no warnings
>> are generated, *but* an entry is made in the linker map file indicating
>> which object(s) caused BTI not to be enabled. (Assuming that a
>> linker map file is being generated). This also matches the current
>> behaviour of the x86_64 linker.
>
> I feel this option is superfluous.
>
>>
>> * With --force-bti, BTI is enabled even if there are input files
>> without the BTI note. In this case, any file without the note
>> triggers a warning message from the linker.
>
> Thus in summary I would suggest renaming --bti to --force-bti and
> continue with existing behaviour.
I agree that --force-bti looks like a more appropriate name for the
option. I am open to the idea of dropping --bti-nowarn
(--force-bti-nowarn) assuming that if need be, users can ignore the
warnings and go on doing what they want anyway.
@Nick, I hope that even though staying co-ordinated with x86_64 is
desirable (to me as well in my personal opinion), our reasoning on the
differences is convincing enough!
Sudi
>
>
>>
>> * Similarly for PAC. Ie --pac enables the PAC tag if all of the
>> inputs support it, but no warnings are generated if some do not,
>> and --force-pac always generates the PAC tag, but warns about
>> object files that are missing the note.
>
> As above.
>
> Ramana
>
>>
>> What do people think ?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Nick
>>
>> PS. Sudi - the code for the patches themselves looks fine to me,
>> so I have no concerns there.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-08 13:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-06 10:26 Sudakshina Das
2019-03-06 10:31 ` [PATCH, BFD, LD, AArch64, 1/4] Add support for GNU PROPERTIES in AArch64 for BTI and PAC Sudakshina Das
2019-03-06 10:34 ` [PATCH, BFD, LD, AArch64, 2/4] Add --bti-nowarn to enable BTI without warning and to select BTI enabled PLTs Sudakshina Das
2019-03-06 10:36 ` [PATCH, BFD, LD, AArch64, 3/4] Add --bti to enable BTI and select BTI enabled PLTs but also warn for missing NOTE sections Sudakshina Das
2019-03-06 10:39 ` [PATCH, BFD, LD, AArch64, 4/4] Add --pac-plt to enable PLTs protected with PAC Sudakshina Das
2019-04-11 14:47 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-03-07 12:37 ` [PATCH, BFD, LD, AArch64, 0/4] Add support for AArch64 BTI and PAC in the linker Nick Clifton
2019-03-07 14:28 ` Sudakshina Das
2019-03-07 15:26 ` Peter Smith
2019-03-07 15:35 ` Nick Clifton
2019-03-07 15:49 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-03-07 15:33 ` Nick Clifton
2019-03-07 17:53 ` Sudakshina Das
2019-03-08 10:07 ` Nick Clifton
2019-03-08 11:08 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-03-08 11:14 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2019-03-08 11:46 ` Peter Smith
2019-03-08 12:32 ` Nick Clifton
2019-03-08 12:44 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2019-03-08 13:36 ` Sudakshina Das [this message]
2019-03-11 12:30 ` Nick Clifton
2019-03-13 11:49 ` Sudakshina Das
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ae7f9d6b-c3af-2c71-10a4-d9e5a0804720@arm.com \
--to=sudi.das@arm.com \
--cc=Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com \
--cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=nickc@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.smith@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).