This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
- From: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: x86-64-abi at googlegroups dot com, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 12:55:16 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
- References: <CAMe9rOrrayKnc_cPm4SmnDnUGLbBUmOYMBTMOM8KLAHVmb=rUQ@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(didn't take part in the side meeting, so sorry if this was discussed)
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Distributions have built binaries with 8-byte-aligned GNU property
Which ones? I know that we (SUSE) avoided CET-marked binaries for the
reason we are in the current predicament. I.e. is that _really_ a problem
at all (or a large one)?
Thing is, there are also binaries (or there could be) that are currently
"valid" that the align-8 approach makes invalid, so why say that's a
problem for the align-4 approach, but not for the align-8 one?
> (1) makes existing binaries invalid, and there was general agreement
> that this is a bad idea. It also fails to support notes with relocation
> on ELFCLASS64 strict-alignment targets.