This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Issue an error for GC on __patchable_function_entries section


On 2020-02-02, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 10:21 AM Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> wrote:

On 2020-02-01, H.J. Lu wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 9:34 AM Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-02-01, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >After all text sections have been garbage collected, if a
>> >__patchable_function_entries section references a section which
>> >wasn't marked, mark it with SEC_EXCLUDE and return NULL.  Otherwise,
>> >keep it.
>> >
>> >Should it be handled in _bfd_elf_gc_mark_extra_sections?
>>
>> Thanks for paying attention to these feature requests.
>>
>> I referenced GNU as and ld requests at
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492#c2
>> If we
>>
>> * implement SHF_LINK_ORDER
>
>I am not sure if overloading (abusing?) SHF_LINK_ORDER is a good idea.

It is an extension, but it is agreed by multiple parties on
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/generic-abi/_CbBM6T6WeM/eGF9A0AnAAAJ ,
including HP-UX and Solaris developers.

>> * allow multiple sections with the same name ("unique")
>
>This is orthogonal to this.  I have a question on assembly syntax:
>
>https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25380#c1
>
>> * teach GCC to use SHF_LINK_ORDER and "unique" (see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2020-01/msg00067.html)
>>
>> An ad-hoc gc marking will be unnecessary.
>
>We need to scan relocations in _patchable_function_entries section for
>references to garbage collected sections.   We can either check section
>name or a SHF_XXX.  But I don't know if SHF_LINK_ORDER is a good
>approach.

We don't need to if we use multiple __patchable_function_entries
sections. Multiple sections are a must due to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93195#c1 (COMDAT)

> A symbol table entry with STB_LOCAL binding that is defined relative
> to one of a group's sections, and that is contained in a symbol table
> section that is not part of the group, must be discarded if the group
> members are discarded. References to this symbol table entry from
> outside the group are not allowed.

The __patchable_function_entries creation logic I implemented in clang:

foreach function foo
   find the first function label defined in foo's section, name it $associated
     ($associated can have 2 reasonable values, w/ or w/o -ffunction-sections)
   get or create an id for $associated, say, $unique

   if foo is in a COMDAT named $comdat
     .section __patchable_function_entries,"awo",@progbits,$associated,comdat,$comdat,unique,$unique
   else
     .section __patchable_function_entries,"awo",@progbits,$associated,unique,$unique

This approach uses feature requests I referenced in *direct* links of
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2020-01/msg00067.html plus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492#c2 ,
and addresses all bugs I filed.


Here is a linker patch to issue an error to avoid corrupt
linker output.

--
H.J.

A typo in the description.

- .section __patchable_function_entries,"awo",%progbits,_start
+ .section __patchable_function_entries,"aw",%progbits

GCC's output is the below (no SHF_LINK_ORDER).

I don't have an opinion whether !SHF_LINK_ORDER should be worked around in GNU ld.
CC Szabolcs who fixed AArch64 BTI https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg01942.html


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]