* x86_64 / i686 no-PIE failures @ 2022-08-17 22:27 Joseph Myers 2022-11-04 7:12 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Joseph Myers @ 2022-08-17 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: libc-alpha Now that the uchar.h failures with mainline GCC are fixed, other failures show up for x86_64 / i686 no-PIE with mainline GCC and binutils (I don't know how long these have been there): /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/install/compilers/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/../../../../x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1.o: non-canonical reference to canonical protected function `foo_protected' in /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmod1.so /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/install/compilers/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/../../../../x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: failed to set dynamic section sizes: bad value collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status ../Rules:238: recipe for target '/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1' failed make[3]: *** [/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory '/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/src/glibc/elf' -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: x86_64 / i686 no-PIE failures 2022-08-17 22:27 x86_64 / i686 no-PIE failures Joseph Myers @ 2022-11-04 7:12 ` Florian Weimer 2022-11-04 9:28 ` Szabolcs Nagy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2022-11-04 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: Joseph Myers, libc-alpha * Joseph Myers: > Now that the uchar.h failures with mainline GCC are fixed, other failures > show up for x86_64 / i686 no-PIE with mainline GCC and binutils (I don't > know how long these have been there): > > /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/install/compilers/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/../../../../x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1.o: non-canonical reference to canonical protected function `foo_protected' in /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmod1.so > /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/install/compilers/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/../../../../x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: failed to set dynamic section sizes: bad value > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > ../Rules:238: recipe for target '/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1' failed > make[3]: *** [/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1] Error 1 > make[3]: Leaving directory '/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/src/glibc/elf' H.J., this test no longer seems valid with current binutils (or current binutils is broken). ifuncmain1.o has X86_64_32S and X86_64_PLT32 relocations for foo_protected, so the main program must contain a PLT stub for foo_protected. Apparently, ld no longer produces such binaries. What should we do about this? Thanks, Florian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: x86_64 / i686 no-PIE failures 2022-11-04 7:12 ` Florian Weimer @ 2022-11-04 9:28 ` Szabolcs Nagy 2022-11-04 16:48 ` H.J. Lu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Szabolcs Nagy @ 2022-11-04 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Florian Weimer; +Cc: H.J. Lu, libc-alpha, Joseph Myers, Fangrui Song The 11/04/2022 08:12, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote: > * Joseph Myers: > > > Now that the uchar.h failures with mainline GCC are fixed, other failures > > show up for x86_64 / i686 no-PIE with mainline GCC and binutils (I don't > > know how long these have been there): > > > > /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/install/compilers/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/../../../../x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1.o: non-canonical reference to canonical protected function `foo_protected' in /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmod1.so > > /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/install/compilers/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/../../../../x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: failed to set dynamic section sizes: bad value > > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > > ../Rules:238: recipe for target '/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1' failed > > make[3]: *** [/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1] Error 1 > > make[3]: Leaving directory '/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/src/glibc/elf' > > H.J., > > this test no longer seems valid with current binutils (or current > binutils is broken). > > ifuncmain1.o has X86_64_32S and X86_64_PLT32 relocations for > foo_protected, so the main program must contain a PLT stub for > foo_protected. Apparently, ld no longer produces such binaries. > > What should we do about this? aarch64 has the same issue since binutils commit 90b7a5df152a64d2bea20beb438e8b81049a5c30 aarch64: Disallow copy relocations on protected data which should be in the binutils 2.39 release ld.lld rejects such usage too, i think the plan was to not support extern protected symbol refs with canonical address moved to the main exe. so the tests should be changed, but i'm not sure what's the best approach (completely dropping protected or just ensure the address is not taken in no-pie case). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: x86_64 / i686 no-PIE failures 2022-11-04 9:28 ` Szabolcs Nagy @ 2022-11-04 16:48 ` H.J. Lu 2022-11-04 16:52 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: H.J. Lu @ 2022-11-04 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Szabolcs Nagy; +Cc: Florian Weimer, libc-alpha, Joseph Myers, Fangrui Song On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:29 AM Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> wrote: > > The 11/04/2022 08:12, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote: > > * Joseph Myers: > > > > > Now that the uchar.h failures with mainline GCC are fixed, other failures > > > show up for x86_64 / i686 no-PIE with mainline GCC and binutils (I don't > > > know how long these have been there): > > > > > > /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/install/compilers/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/../../../../x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1.o: non-canonical reference to canonical protected function `foo_protected' in /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmod1.so > > > /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/install/compilers/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/../../../../x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: failed to set dynamic section sizes: bad value > > > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > > > ../Rules:238: recipe for target '/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1' failed > > > make[3]: *** [/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1] Error 1 > > > make[3]: Leaving directory '/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/src/glibc/elf' > > > > H.J., > > > > this test no longer seems valid with current binutils (or current > > binutils is broken). > > > > ifuncmain1.o has X86_64_32S and X86_64_PLT32 relocations for > > foo_protected, so the main program must contain a PLT stub for > > foo_protected. Apparently, ld no longer produces such binaries. > > > > What should we do about this? > > aarch64 has the same issue since > > binutils commit 90b7a5df152a64d2bea20beb438e8b81049a5c30 > aarch64: Disallow copy relocations on protected data > > which should be in the binutils 2.39 release > > ld.lld rejects such usage too, i think the plan was to not > support extern protected symbol refs with canonical address > moved to the main exe. > > so the tests should be changed, but i'm not sure what's > the best approach (completely dropping protected or just > ensure the address is not taken in no-pie case). Given the linker change, we should drop these tests for non-PIE. -- H.J. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: x86_64 / i686 no-PIE failures 2022-11-04 16:48 ` H.J. Lu @ 2022-11-04 16:52 ` Florian Weimer 2022-11-04 17:28 ` Fangrui Song 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2022-11-04 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: Szabolcs Nagy, libc-alpha, Joseph Myers, Fangrui Song * H. J. Lu: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:29 AM Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> wrote: >> >> The 11/04/2022 08:12, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote: >> > * Joseph Myers: >> > >> > > Now that the uchar.h failures with mainline GCC are fixed, other failures >> > > show up for x86_64 / i686 no-PIE with mainline GCC and binutils (I don't >> > > know how long these have been there): >> > > >> > > /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/install/compilers/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/../../../../x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1.o: non-canonical reference to canonical protected function `foo_protected' in /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmod1.so >> > > /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/install/compilers/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/../../../../x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: failed to set dynamic section sizes: bad value >> > > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status >> > > ../Rules:238: recipe for target '/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1' failed >> > > make[3]: *** [/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1] Error 1 >> > > make[3]: Leaving directory '/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/src/glibc/elf' >> > >> > H.J., >> > >> > this test no longer seems valid with current binutils (or current >> > binutils is broken). >> > >> > ifuncmain1.o has X86_64_32S and X86_64_PLT32 relocations for >> > foo_protected, so the main program must contain a PLT stub for >> > foo_protected. Apparently, ld no longer produces such binaries. >> > >> > What should we do about this? >> >> aarch64 has the same issue since >> >> binutils commit 90b7a5df152a64d2bea20beb438e8b81049a5c30 >> aarch64: Disallow copy relocations on protected data >> >> which should be in the binutils 2.39 release >> >> ld.lld rejects such usage too, i think the plan was to not >> support extern protected symbol refs with canonical address >> moved to the main exe. >> >> so the tests should be changed, but i'm not sure what's >> the best approach (completely dropping protected or just >> ensure the address is not taken in no-pie case). > > Given the linker change, we should drop these tests for non-PIE. 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? Thanks, Florian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: x86_64 / i686 no-PIE failures 2022-11-04 16:52 ` Florian Weimer @ 2022-11-04 17:28 ` Fangrui Song 2022-11-04 17:47 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Fangrui Song @ 2022-11-04 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Florian Weimer; +Cc: H.J. Lu, Szabolcs Nagy, libc-alpha, Joseph Myers On 2022-11-04, Florian Weimer wrote: >* H. J. Lu: > >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:29 AM Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> wrote: >>> >>> The 11/04/2022 08:12, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote: >>> > * Joseph Myers: >>> > >>> > > Now that the uchar.h failures with mainline GCC are fixed, other failures >>> > > show up for x86_64 / i686 no-PIE with mainline GCC and binutils (I don't >>> > > know how long these have been there): >>> > > >>> > > /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/install/compilers/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/../../../../x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1.o: non-canonical reference to canonical protected function `foo_protected' in /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmod1.so >>> > > /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/install/compilers/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/gcc/x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/13.0.0/../../../../x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: failed to set dynamic section sizes: bad value >>> > > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status >>> > > ../Rules:238: recipe for target '/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1' failed >>> > > make[3]: *** [/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/build/glibcs/x86_64-linux-gnu-no-pie/glibc/elf/ifuncmain1] Error 1 >>> > > make[3]: Leaving directory '/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/src/glibc/elf' >>> > >>> > H.J., >>> > >>> > this test no longer seems valid with current binutils (or current >>> > binutils is broken). >>> > >>> > ifuncmain1.o has X86_64_32S and X86_64_PLT32 relocations for >>> > foo_protected, so the main program must contain a PLT stub for >>> > foo_protected. Apparently, ld no longer produces such binaries. >>> > >>> > What should we do about this? >>> >>> aarch64 has the same issue since >>> >>> binutils commit 90b7a5df152a64d2bea20beb438e8b81049a5c30 >>> aarch64: Disallow copy relocations on protected data >>> >>> which should be in the binutils 2.39 release >>> >>> ld.lld rejects such usage too, i think the plan was to not >>> support extern protected symbol refs with canonical address >>> moved to the main exe. >>> >>> so the tests should be changed, but i'm not sure what's >>> the best approach (completely dropping protected or just >>> ensure the address is not taken in no-pie case). >> >> 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? > >Thanks, >Florian > R_X86_64_PLT32 is a PLT-generating relocation, not a direct reference. It is compatible with a protected definition in a DSO. See https://maskray.me/blog/2021-01-09-copy-relocations-canonical-plt-entries-and-protected#protected-data-symbols-and-copy-relocations for a very long write-up. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: x86_64 / i686 no-PIE failures 2022-11-04 17:28 ` Fangrui Song @ 2022-11-04 17:47 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2022-11-04 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fangrui Song; +Cc: H.J. Lu, Szabolcs Nagy, libc-alpha, Joseph Myers * 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-11-04 17:47 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-08-17 22:27 x86_64 / i686 no-PIE failures Joseph Myers 2022-11-04 7:12 ` Florian Weimer 2022-11-04 9:28 ` Szabolcs Nagy 2022-11-04 16:48 ` H.J. Lu 2022-11-04 16:52 ` Florian Weimer 2022-11-04 17:28 ` Fangrui Song 2022-11-04 17:47 ` Florian Weimer
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).