From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 60279 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2015 18:29:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 60245 invoked by uid 89); 6 Mar 2015 18:29:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:29:21 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1YTwzu-00000b-4a from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:29:18 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:29:16 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YTwzr-0008IO-AZ; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:29:15 +0000 Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:29:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: "H.J. Lu" CC: GCC Patches , GNU C Library , Binutils Subject: Re: RFC: PATCHES: Properly handle reference to protected data on x86 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00387.txt.bz2 On Wed, 4 Mar 2015, H.J. Lu wrote: > Protected symbol means that it can't be pre-emptied. It > doesn't mean its address won't be external. This is true > for pointer to protected function. With copy relocation, > address of protected data defined in the shared library may > also be external. We only know that for sure at run-time. > Here are patches for glibc, binutils and GCC to handle it > properly. > > Any comments? I don't see any testcases in the glibc patch; it seems critical to have sufficient testcases to make it easy for architecture maintainers to tell if there is an issue for their architecture (and the testcases need to have clear comments explaining any requirements on GCC and binutils for them to work - that is, comments referring to committed patches or releases rather than to anything uncommitted). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com