linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86/boot: Remove runtime relocations from compressed kernel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+icZUUtdT+zV7Y9LM9qRxUSVPuOsf2EQMToLdF-fwrageWpKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 17:38:50 +0200
From:   Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Golovin <dima@...ovin.in>,
        Clang-Built-Linux ML <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86/boot: Remove runtime relocations from
 compressed kernel

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:36 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 04:50:38PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:47 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:44:29PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Are those diffs correct when using "x86/boot: Correct relocation
> > > > destination on old linkers"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It looks ok, but that patch (and even marking the other symbols .hidden)
> > > should be unnecessary after this series.
> >
> > You mean _bss, _ebss and _end?
> >
> > - Sedat -
>
> Yes. Those .hidden markings are there to ensure that when relocations
> are generated (as they are currently), they're generated as
> R_386_RELATIVE (which uses B+A calculation, with A being the link-time
> virtual address of the symbol, and stored in the relocation field)
> rather than R_386_32 (which uses S+A calculation, and so doesn't work
> without runtime processing). After this patchset there aren't any
> relocations, so while the .hidden markings won't hurt, they won't be
> necessary either.
>

So, I am here on Debian/testing AMD64.

How can I test the patchset worked correctly?

- Sedat -