[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b588dd9e-dff8-3458-0c7d-149e3990bca7@forissier.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:10:24 +0200
From: Jerome Forissier <jerome@...issier.org>
To: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@....com>,
Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>,
Zong Li <zong.li@...ive.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] riscv: Introduce CONFIG_RELOCATABLE
On 6/7/20 9:59 AM, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
[...]
> +config RELOCATABLE
> + bool
> + depends on MMU
> + help
> + This builds a kernel as a Position Independent Executable (PIE),
> + which retains all relocation metadata required to relocate the
> + kernel binary at runtime to a different virtual address than the
> + address it was linked at.
> + Since RISCV uses the RELA relocation format, this requires a
> + relocation pass at runtime even if the kernel is loaded at the
> + same address it was linked at.
Is this true? I thought that the GNU linker would write the "proper"
values by default, contrary to the LLVM linker (ld.lld) which would need
a special flag: --apply-dynamic-relocs (by default the relocated places
are set to zero). At least, it is my experience with Aarch64 on a
different project. So, sorry if I'm talking nonsense here -- I have not
looked at the details.
--
Jerome
Powered by blists - more mailing lists