Message-ID: <CAFP8O3JZ9=QeJR0wZwYvLYVgXKo9DYBMsaxoBS9vLJZW-U1uZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:10:46 -0800
From: Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, 
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/build: Simplify patterns for unwanted section

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 2:40 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:13:01PM -0800, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 2:07 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 01:29:29PM -0800, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > > > A s390 patch modeling its --orphan-handling= after x86 [1] sparked my
> > > > motivation to simplify patterns. Commit 5354e84598f2 ("x86/build: Add
> > > > asserts for unwanted sections") added asserts that certain input
> > > > sections must be absent or empty. The patterns can be simplified.
> > > >
> > > > For dynamic relocations,
> > > >
> > > > *(.rela.*) is sufficient to match all dynamic relocations synthesized by
> > > > GNU ld and LLD. .rela_* is unnecessary. --emit-relocs may create .rela_*
> > > > sections for section names prefixed with _, but they are not matched by
> > > > linker scripts.
> > > >
> > > > .plt instead of .plt.* is sufficient to match synthesized PLT entries.
> > >
> > > Do you mean ".plt.foo" matches ".plt" ?
> >
> > I mean we just need .plt : { *(.plt) } , not .plt : { *(.plt) *(.plt.*) }.
>
> But then, for example, if it gets generated, .plt.got ends up being
> reported as an orphan...
>
> >
> > The linker synthesized section for PLT entries is .plt, not suffixed.
> >
> > > > .igot and .igot.plt are for non-preemptible STT_GNU_IFUNC in GNU ld (LLD
> > > > just uses .got), which the kernel does not use. In addition, if .igot or
>
> Right, the issue has been getting totally weird sections emitted by the
> linker. If you're saying you'd rather those get reported as orphan
> sections instead of being validated for being zero sized, and that works
> for all the architectures, then okay.

Thanks. I trust my judgement here:)

> > > > .igot.plt is ever non-empty, there will be .rela.* dynamic relocations
> > > > leading to an assert failure anyway.
> > >
> > > I think at the time I was dealing with avoid multiple warnings out of
> > > the linker, as I was getting orphan warnings in addition to the
> > > non-empty warnings.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240207-s390-lld-and-orphan-warn-v1-6-8a665b3346ab@kernel.org/
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > Is anything harmed by leaving all of this as-is?
> > >
> > > -Kees
> >
> > No harm. But ports adopting --orphan-handling= (like s390) may copy
> > the unneeded .rela_* .
> > When people read .rela_*, they might think whether the kernel does
> > anything special that
> > .rela_* needs to be matched.
>
> I added these because the were being generated. See commit d1c0272bc1c0
> ("x86/boot/compressed: Remove, discard, or assert for unwanted sections")
>
> I don't want to suddenly start generating warnings for older/broken
> linkers. (i.e. a change like this needs really careful testing, and that
> needs to be detailed in the commit log.)
>
> -Kees

I saw this commit and still believe .rela_*  is unnecessary for all
supported binutils versions.
GNU ld 2.25 does not support --orphan-handling=error (2015-09
feature), but it manages to link vmlinux without any warning.

/tmp/binutils-2.25/out/release/ld/ld-new -m elf_x86_64 -z noexecstack
--emit-relocs --discard-none -z max-page-size=0x200000 --build-id=sha1
--script=./arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux.lds -o vmlinux --whole-archive
vmlinux.o .vmlinux.export.o init/version-timestamp.o
--no-whole-archive --start-group --end-group .tmp_vmlinux.kallsyms2.o


> --
> Kees Cook



-- 
宋方睿

Powered by blists - more mailing lists