* [Bug libc/29662] s390 glibc wrongly assumes GOT[0] is _DYNAMIC
2022-10-08 1:28 [Bug libc/29662] New: s390 glibc wrongly assumes GOT[0] is _DYNAMIC rui314 at gmail dot com
@ 2022-10-12 14:32 ` krebbel at linux dot ibm.com
2022-10-13 1:21 ` rui314 at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: krebbel at linux dot ibm.com @ 2022-10-12 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29662
Andreas Krebbel <krebbel at linux dot ibm.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |krebbel at linux dot ibm.com
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Krebbel <krebbel at linux dot ibm.com> ---
Actually our ABI document defines that the first GOT entry has to point at
_DYNAMIC:
The format and interpretation of the Global Offset Table is processor specific.
For s390x the symbol _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ may be used to access the table. The
symbol refers to the start of the .got section. Two words in the GOT are
reserved:
• The word at _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_[0] is set by the linkage editor to hold the
address of the dynamic structure, referenced with the symbol _DYNAMIC. This
allows a program, such as the dynamic linker, to find its own dynamic structure
without having yet processed its relocation entries. This is especially
important for the dynamic linker, because it must initialize itself without
relying on other programs to relocate its memory image.
• The word at _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_[1] is reserved for future use.
Please see:
https://github.com/IBM/s390x-abi/releases/download/v1.6/lzsabi_s390x.pdf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/29662] s390 glibc wrongly assumes GOT[0] is _DYNAMIC
2022-10-08 1:28 [Bug libc/29662] New: s390 glibc wrongly assumes GOT[0] is _DYNAMIC rui314 at gmail dot com
2022-10-12 14:32 ` [Bug libc/29662] " krebbel at linux dot ibm.com
@ 2022-10-13 1:21 ` rui314 at gmail dot com
2022-11-21 6:21 ` i at maskray dot me
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: rui314 at gmail dot com @ 2022-10-13 1:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29662
Rui Ueyama <rui314 at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #2 from Rui Ueyama <rui314 at gmail dot com> ---
Apologies, I missed that part of the psABI. It is indeed explicitly defined as
such. I"ll make a change to the mold linker to follow the word. Thank you for
pointing it out!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/29662] s390 glibc wrongly assumes GOT[0] is _DYNAMIC
2022-10-08 1:28 [Bug libc/29662] New: s390 glibc wrongly assumes GOT[0] is _DYNAMIC rui314 at gmail dot com
2022-10-12 14:32 ` [Bug libc/29662] " krebbel at linux dot ibm.com
2022-10-13 1:21 ` rui314 at gmail dot com
@ 2022-11-21 6:21 ` i at maskray dot me
2022-11-21 7:56 ` rui314 at gmail dot com
2022-11-21 9:28 ` i at maskray dot me
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: i at maskray dot me @ 2022-11-21 6:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29662
Fangrui Song <i at maskray dot me> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |i at maskray dot me
--- Comment #3 from Fangrui Song <i at maskray dot me> ---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #1)
> Actually our ABI document defines that the first GOT entry has to point at
> _DYNAMIC:
>
> The format and interpretation of the Global Offset Table is processor
> specific. For s390x the symbol _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ may be used to access
> the table. The symbol refers to the start of the .got section. Two words in
> the GOT are reserved:
>
> • The word at _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_[0] is set by the linkage editor to hold
> the address of the dynamic structure, referenced with the symbol _DYNAMIC.
> This allows a program, such as the dynamic linker, to find its own dynamic
> structure without having yet processed its relocation entries. This is
> especially important for the dynamic linker, because it must initialize
> itself without relying on other programs to relocate its memory image.
> • The word at _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_[1] is reserved for future use.
>
> Please see:
> https://github.com/IBM/s390x-abi/releases/download/v1.6/lzsabi_s390x.pdf
This is the legacy SunOS 4.x ld.so way of getting `__DYNAMIC`, which was copied
by NetBSD ldso in 1993, and glibc.
`_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_[0] = _DYNAMIC` is not really necessary for ldso to get
_DYNAMIC. It can use plain C with a hidden visibility of _DYNAMIC.
Even on x86-32 with no PC-relative relocations, I managed to change the glibc
port to avoid `_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_[0] = _DYNAMIC` assumption (commit
91e92272caefad4b6156572fc41671dcbd93afe5)
/* Return the link-time address of _DYNAMIC. */
static inline Elf32_Addr __attribute__ ((unused))
elf_machine_dynamic (void)
{
extern Elf32_Dyn _DYNAMIC[] attribute_hidden;
return (Elf32_Addr) _DYNAMIC - elf_machine_load_address ();
}
It would be nice to drop the assumption for s390x as well. It's very odd to
define `_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_[0] = _DYNAMIC` in a psABI, at least I haven't
seen it in other psABI documents.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/29662] s390 glibc wrongly assumes GOT[0] is _DYNAMIC
2022-10-08 1:28 [Bug libc/29662] New: s390 glibc wrongly assumes GOT[0] is _DYNAMIC rui314 at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-21 6:21 ` i at maskray dot me
@ 2022-11-21 7:56 ` rui314 at gmail dot com
2022-11-21 9:28 ` i at maskray dot me
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: rui314 at gmail dot com @ 2022-11-21 7:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29662
--- Comment #4 from Rui Ueyama <rui314 at gmail dot com> ---
GOT[0] is indeed redundant, but removing dependencies to that entry is not
probably productive at this point, because it is already part of the standard
psABI of s390x. Even if we remove all dependencies to GOT[0] from glibc, there
may be code that depends on it, and they are not technically wrong because
GOT[0]'s value is guaranteed by the psABI, so we can't remove GOT[0] anyway.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/29662] s390 glibc wrongly assumes GOT[0] is _DYNAMIC
2022-10-08 1:28 [Bug libc/29662] New: s390 glibc wrongly assumes GOT[0] is _DYNAMIC rui314 at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-21 7:56 ` rui314 at gmail dot com
@ 2022-11-21 9:28 ` i at maskray dot me
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: i at maskray dot me @ 2022-11-21 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29662
--- Comment #5 from Fangrui Song <i at maskray dot me> ---
(In reply to Rui Ueyama from comment #4)
> GOT[0] is indeed redundant, but removing dependencies to that entry is not
> probably productive at this point, because it is already part of the
> standard psABI of s390x. Even if we remove all dependencies to GOT[0] from
> glibc, there may be code that depends on it, and they are not technically
> wrong because GOT[0]'s value is guaranteed by the psABI, so we can't remove
> GOT[0] anyway.
It is not meaningful for a linker supporting this to remove the support (it
breaks linking glibc[1]) but it is meaningful for glibc. At this point glibc
can use the same implementation for many ports but s390x is one of the
stragglers. Moving away from it is a small code clean-up
[1] lld does not set _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ for many architectures, and that
appears to work fine. I know glibc aarch64 used it, so I submitted a patch to
remove it, and that was the only instance I have seen. musl, FreeBSD rtld,
NetBSD rtld, etc use approaches that don't need _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_[0]. The
s390x psABI specifying _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_[0] really mixes psABI with glibc
internals.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread