This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Joe Groff <jgroff at apple dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:41:59 -0700
- Subject: Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <9106B2FB-BB06-413A-A04D-EEFB992784FA at apple dot com> <CAJimCsEzZ8GDByd8r9x5J9sQ__V0o1mn21FD1xLPe7OhWdikKQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqipnAMa-OeYfks6=FYRffxSrcLuJnJD=wX-PjoKcGWRA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAJimCsFxza3TWVXorqYLa--SfUZ_LznR=m2GkJ_Mq6YZ9Ga3YQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Cary Coutant <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I disagree. Protected means that it won't be preempted. It
>> doesn't mean the address of protected symbol will be local.
>> With copy relocation, the run-time address of the protected
>> symbol can be in executable. There are a couple run-time
>> tests in glibc to verify it. See:
> No. You can't just redefine away the meaning of "must resolve to a
> definition in that component." A COPY relocation makes a new
> definition in the main program and that new definition pre-empts the
> one in the shared library. That breaks everything that the rule in the
> gABI was designed to allow.
What you are proposing is to disallow copy relocation against
protected symbol. Am I correct?