This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: RFC: PATCHES: Properly handle reference to protected data on x86
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:33:31 -0800
- Subject: Re: RFC: PATCHES: Properly handle reference to protected data on x86
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMe9rOoKS4BwBSd2T+bcchYOykZ7Gzh2jCMC5J6r0qyEX1u0_Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1503061827300 dot 24477 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Joseph Myers <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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
>> 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).