[PATCH v2] ld: Check input section garbage collection error

[H.J. Lu]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 7:04 AM Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2026 at 05:24:14AM +0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 6:40 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 05.08.2026 12:32, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 4:59 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 05.08.2026 10:50, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > >>> bfd_gc_sections may return false on invalid input:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ld: pr34448-bug_18.o: bad reloc symbol index (0xf2000005 >= 0x13) for
> > > >>> offset 0x4 in section `.text.get_tls[get_tls]'
> > > >>>
> > > >>> and set the BFD error to bfd_error_bad_value.  Check bfd_gc_sections
> > > >>> return and report the fatal error if the BFD error is bfd_error_bad_value.
> > > >>
> > > >> And what guarantees that bfd_error_bad_value isn't also set for other kinds
> > > >> of errors, from about anywhere in the library? Does bfd_gc_sections()
> > > >> returning false even reliably set the error indicator? That's far from
> > > >
> > > > If it isn't the case, it is a bug.
> > > >
> > > >> obvious when looking at e.g. bfd_elf_gc_sections(), so I can't exclude the
> > > >> possibility of bfd_error_bad_value having been on record before the call,
> > > >> and it simply not getting changed.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't it a bug?
> > >
> > > I don't know, as I don't know enough of the history of libbfd. The value could
> > > be meant to be errno-like, i.e. you may need to clear it at certain points
> > > (especially if there's a mix of functions storing into and not storing into
> > > the field).
> >
> > When a bfd function returns an error, the BFD error should be set
> > appropriately.  If it isn't the case, it is a BFD bug.
>
> The original commits 303b4cc64fa8 and 71b012a810fd omitted
> checking the return from bfd_gc_sections, but I'm inclined to think
> that any false return from bfd_gc_sections should result in an error
> exit from ld, displaying the bfd error with %E.  We also should not be
> ignoring a false return from gc_mark_extra_sections in
> bfd_elf_gc_sections.
>
> --
> Alan Modra

Here is the v2 patch to check gc_mark_extra_sections error return.
With

commit 44fab92685fd1f4bc02cc6668237883ed0d9789d
Author: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu Jul 30 15:18:42 2026 +0800

    ld: Don't treated the fatal error as warning

the fatal error won't be ignored by -w.

-- 
H.J.
---
The ELF backend gc_mark_extra_sections function may return false for
error and bfd_gc_sections may return false on invalid input:

ld: pr34448-bug_18.o: bad reloc symbol index (0xf2000005 >= 0x13) for
offset 0x4 in section `.text.get_tls[get_tls]'

and set the BFD error to bfd_error_bad_value.

Change bfd_elf_gc_sections to return false if gc_mark_extra_sections
return false.  Change lang_gc_sections to check bfd_gc_sections return
and report the fatal error if the BFD error is bfd_error_bad_value.

bfd/
PR ld/34448
* elflink.c (bfd_elf_gc_sections): Return false if
gc_mark_extra_sections return false.

ld/
PR ld/34448
* ldlang.c (lang_gc_sections): Check bfd_gc_sections return and
report the fatal error if the BFD error is bfd_error_bad_value.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: v2-0001-ld-Check-input-section-garbage-collection-error.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2155 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20260806/965f3994/attachment.bin>