This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: Adding static-PIE support to binutils


On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:30:56AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 08:56:00AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:42:56PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> >> >> > > For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
> >> >> > > following post to the GCC list:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg00008.html
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > So far, I've been prototyping static PIE support by having GCC pass
> >> >> > > the following options to ld instead of -static -pie:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >         -static -shared -Bsymbolic
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > This partly works, but since ld does not know it's producing a main
> >> >> > > executable, it misses important details, including the ability to link
> >> >> > > initial-exec and local-exec model TLS code correctly, as well as
> >> >> > > various linking optimizations. So I think the right way forward is
> >> >> > > making ld accept -static and -pie together to do the right thing.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > In elflink.c, _bfd_elf_link_create_dynamic_sections assumes that
> >> >> > > executables should always have a .interp section.
> >> >> > > bfd_elf_size_dynamic_sections asserts this assumption again, and the
> >> >> > > individual elf??-*.c files also do so in *_elf_size_dynamic_sections
> >> >> > > where they set a default interpreter. (Is this even useful? Most of
> >> >> > > the names are out of touch with reality, and GCC always passes an
> >> >> > > explicit -dynamic-linker anyway, so I think this code should just be
> >> >> > > removed.)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Now I have a working prototype by changing the info->executable
> >> >> > > condition to info->executable && info->dynamic, and having lexsup.c
> >> >> > > store the value of input_flags.dynamic in link_info.dynamic after
> >> >> > > processing the command line, but I'm not sure if this is the right
> >> >> > > approach.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It is OK to use -static/-Bstatic/-non_shared with -shared and -pie.
> >> >> > I think you want --no-dynamic-linker.
> >> >>
> >> >> I see two overall approaches to making the option to omit .interp:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. In elflink.c, make the creation of the .interp section conditional
> >> >>    on a new field in link_info.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. In ld code (ldlang.c? elf32.em?), check the command line option and
> >> >>    remove the .interp section before it can be processed.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think option 1 is a lot cleaner, but it's also going to be a lot
> >> >> more invasive, because every single target arch (elf32-*.c and
> >> >> elf64-*.c) has its own ASSERT that the .interp section exists. These
> >> >> would also need to be updated to either check the new field in
> >> >> link_info, or to replace the ASSERT with a conditional.
> >> >>
> >> >> Before I spend a lot of time implementing one or the other, do you
> >> >> have any feelings on which way would be appropriate?
> >> >
> >> > I went ahead and did option 1 modulo all the target code except sh
> >> > which is where I'm testing it. My work-in-progress patch is attached.
> >> > This is obviously not ready to submit but I would appreciate any
> >> > feedback that's possible at this stage.
> >>
> >> + case OPTION_NO_DYNAMIC_LINKER:
> >> +  command_line.interpreter = NULL;
> >> +  link_info.nointerp = 1;
> >>
> >> No need to clear command_line.interpreter and please add a simple
> >> testcase to verify it works correctly.
> >
> > OK. Do I also need to update it to be against the new output_type
> > stuff you just committed?
> >
> 
> That is a good idea.

I've updated the patch to cover the changes needed for all the
elf??-*.c target files (lots of code duplication already there), skip
the clearing of command_line.interpreter, and based it on current git
master with your output_type changes.

I haven't done a test case yet -- I looked briefly but couldn't find
documentation on how to add one. Is there a guide or template I should
look at? And do I need to open a BZ issue for the feature request, or
can non-bug changes like this skip BZ?

Rich

Attachment: static-pie.diff
Description: Text document


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