[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190618133223.GD2790@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:32:25 +0100
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 22/27] binfmt_elf: Extract .note.gnu.property from an
ELF file
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:55:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:47:00PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra:
> >
> > > I'm not sure I read Thomas' comment like that. In my reading keeping the
> > > PT_NOTE fallback is exactly one of those 'fly workarounds'. By not
> > > supporting PT_NOTE only the 'fine' people already shit^Hpping this out
> > > of tree are affected, and we don't have to care about them at all.
> >
> > Just to be clear here: There was an ABI document that required PT_NOTE
> > parsing.
>
> URGH.
>
> > The Linux kernel does *not* define the x86-64 ABI, it only
> > implements it. The authoritative source should be the ABI document.
> >
> > In this particularly case, so far anyone implementing this ABI extension
> > tried to provide value by changing it, sometimes successfully. Which
> > makes me wonder why we even bother to mainatain ABI documentation. The
> > kernel is just very late to the party.
>
> How can the kernel be late to the party if all of this is spinning
> wheels without kernel support?
PT_GNU_PROPERTY is mentioned and allocated a p_type value in hjl's
spec [1], but otherwise seems underspecified.
In particular, it's not clear whether a PT_GNU_PROPERTY phdr _must_ be
emitted for NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0. While it seems a no-brainer to emit
it, RHEL's linker already doesn't IIUC, and there are binaries in the
wild.
Maybe this phdr type is a late addition -- I haven't attempted to dig
through the history.
For arm64 we don't have this out-of-tree legacy to support, so we can
avoid exhausitvely searching for the note: no PT_GNU_PROPERTY ->
no note.
So, can we do the same for x86, forcing RHEL to carry some code out of
tree to support their legacy binaries? Or do we accept that there is
already a de facto ABI and try to be compatible with it?
>From my side, I want to avoid duplication between x86 and arm64, and
keep unneeded complexity out of the ELF loader where possible.
Cheers
---Dave
[1] https://github.com/hjl-tools/linux-abi/wiki/Linux-Extensions-to-gABI
Powered by blists - more mailing lists