[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aYdbkEnAooEuWkae@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2026 16:34:40 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Daniel Palmer <daniel@...ngy.jp>
Cc: linux@...ssschuh.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/10] nolibc: Add static-pie support
Hi Daniel,
On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 09:45:32PM +0900, Daniel Palmer wrote:
> v2:
>
> - This is still RFC quality
> - I have gotten a few more archs to work (not crash in nolibc-test) so I have added them
> to show the that the arch specific parts are pretty small.
> - This should now only add this extra code if NOLIBC_WANT_RELOC is defined, which happens
> automatically if you compile with -fpie. Should address Willy's concern with the size
> blowing up for even binaries that don't need this.
Oh yes that's a nice improvement indeed, thank you:
$ size init-master init-dpalmer*
text data bss dec hex filename
22519 24 39424 61967 f20f init-master
22562 24 39424 62010 f23a init-dpalmer
22710 56 39424 62190 f2ee init-dpalmer-pie
22816 24 39424 62264 f338 init-dpalmer-want-reloc
I think the 43 bytes increase on the _start_c part remains acceptable,
especially compared to the +300 before :-)
> Size difference on ppc64 is massive, I guess PIC code is big there.
>
> static:
>
> $ file nolibc-test
> nolibc-test: ELF 64-bit MSB executable, 64-bit PowerPC or cisco 7500, Power ELF V1 ABI, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, not stripped
> $ size nolibc-test
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 59560 3240 104 62904 f5b8 nolibc-test
>
> static pie:
>
> $ file nolibc-test
> nolibc-test: ELF 64-bit MSB pie executable, 64-bit PowerPC or cisco 7500, Power ELF V1 ABI, version 1 (SYSV), static-pie linked, with debug_info, not stripped
> $ size nolibc-test
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 67801 3656 104 71561 11789 nolibc-test
>
> - Each of the archs checks that the relocations they need (just the one at the moment) is defined
> before defining the relocation defines. So this shouldn't break with older UAPI headers.
I confirm, I've built against 5.10 to 6.18 and it's OK, and if -fpie
is passed we get an error saying the arch doesn't support it.
> - I think maybe you might want to set NOLIBC_WANT_RELOC even if __pie__ is not defined,
> maybe for testing? So I didn't make it _NOLIBC_WANT_RELOC.
It's possible, at least for developers/maintainers maybe. Above I used it
to compare the size increase caused by the changes.
> - I was worried some archs didn't work because calling the relocation functions was
> causing things like accessing the stack canary before it was accessible. So I added
> __inline__ to all of the relocation functions to force them to get inlined into _start_c().
If you absolutely need to forcefully inline, you should add
__attribute__((always_inline)) in addition to __inline__, as
it will override the default compiler setting based on the
optimization level. However the functions are short enough
that they were always inlined in my tests regardless of the
attribute.
> This might be too much. checkpatch certainly hates it.
No big deal.
Thanks,
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists