[PATCH v2 3/6] objcopy: Remove SHT_LLVM_ADDRSIG sections by default.

[Jan Beulich]

On 23.06.2022 17:13, Tatsuyuki Ishi wrote:
> --- a/binutils/objcopy.c
> +++ b/binutils/objcopy.c
> @@ -1316,10 +1316,20 @@ is_mergeable_note_section (bfd * abfd, asection * sec)
>    return false;
>  }
>  
> +static bool
> +is_addrsig_section (bfd *abfd, asection *sec)
> +{
> +  if (bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_elf_flavour
> +      && elf_section_data (sec)->this_hdr.sh_type == SHT_LLVM_ADDRSIG)
> +    return true;
> +
> +  return false;
> +}

Not sure if this would conflict with unwritten style expectations,
but when I see such I always wonder: Why not a simple return
statement, without explicit use of true/false (or 1/0)?

> @@ -1348,6 +1358,20 @@ is_strip_section_1 (bfd *abfd ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, asection *sec)
>  	return true;
>      }
>  
> +  /* addrsig needs to be updated if the symtab is altered, but we don't know
> +     how to read nor write it, so just throw it away to not confuse
> +     downstream tools.  */
> +  if (is_addrsig_section (abfd, sec))
> +    {
> +      non_fatal (_ ("warning: removing section %s to prevent corrupt addrsig "
> +                    "information"),
> +                 bfd_section_name (sec));
> +      non_fatal (_ ("pass --remove-section=%1$s to suppress warning, or "
> +                    "--keep-section=%1$s to override"),
> +                 bfd_section_name (sec));
> +      return true;
> +    }

Isn't this too aggressive? The comment says "if the symtab is altered",
but the code looks to request stripping unconditionally.

Jan