From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC0C3385841E for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2022 17:47:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org EC0C3385841E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1667584036; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=jAWOxPptZEHjChMgXFDhdFz2O7GssmvZQjTQaPShdM0=; b=XnRNH3/ColpNKkWMg+TZ+Eb3GHHNIMBTHqhuGU82GD7SoMeZBNooT2pGXPfRjHNuhxGyR/ 69G2+BSLjwk1x8KaSCGVAiNJjltawL3NgM/NK+CRcHm6gnPS908ZGBdugKDy6ixOafzGPS 0NyYe5qqhaWso9emmxDxssErjz7GLug= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-279-Xewa_YzKMDe3jLNImxMqqw-1; Fri, 04 Nov 2022 13:47:13 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Xewa_YzKMDe3jLNImxMqqw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CDDA1C07551; Fri, 4 Nov 2022 17:47:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.19]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFE75200D8C0; Fri, 4 Nov 2022 17:47:11 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Fangrui Song Cc: "H.J. Lu" , Szabolcs Nagy , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Joseph Myers Subject: Re: x86_64 / i686 no-PIE failures References: <87a6572ny0.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <87iljuzmos.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <20221104172825.7suwsbpdzvs5tqkt@google.com> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2022 18:47:10 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20221104172825.7suwsbpdzvs5tqkt@google.com> (Fangrui Song's message of "Fri, 4 Nov 2022 10:28:25 -0700") Message-ID: <871qqizk69.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.4 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,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 List-Id: * Fangrui Song: > On 2022-11-04, Florian Weimer wrote: >>* H. J. Lu: >>> Given the linker change, we should drop these tests for non-PIE. > > Agree. > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=66a273d16a63d1ed74a8d14a210a04c6a0f5dd45 > ("elf: Disable ifuncmain{1,5,5pic,5pie} when using LLD") > disabled some tests about exe's direct references to protected DSO symbols. > binutils ports (aarch64 and x86) which have the strict behavior need to > disable the tests as well. > >>If we don't take the address of foo_protected, we'd only have an >>X86_64_PLT32 relocation. Would that be valid from a linker perspective? > R_X86_64_PLT32 is a PLT-generating relocation, not a direct reference. > It is compatible with a protected definition in a DSO. Thanks, I'm testing a patch. Florian