This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Reduce file size for PT_GNU_RELRO segment
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:44:33 +1030
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reduce file size for PT_GNU_RELRO segment
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150319130244 dot GA22592 at intel dot com> <20150326022246 dot GU26234 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAMe9rOrVpthhMfZEXcMkKzmHcxymfQHKuTuZPi_y36=s6KJ9iA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150328041540 dot GE26234 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAMe9rOoVzbOvdE1_apgUbHtm0gG89d3_9qbnA8=Y3Qu9MznUPA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOp8sdCbOp0eVzRmwMhe_3c2K0EJ6fmnMMWyA01KYamzLw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150329034858 dot GH26234 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAMe9rOrJB7xNLn4FEq5+N8VbnfZuYxkM4tPNMQzOKapVheGOpQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150330123934 dot GJ26234 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAMe9rOrXQJmjNR4ynGD9BQJz5T8OygQekoLVsmubpFva1ff45w at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:00:20AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Alan Modra <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 06:58:45AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Alan Modra <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> > lang_size_sections). I think it important that we keep the relro base
> >> > alignment code all in one place.
> >> It is not about the base alignment. It is about setting the address of
> >> the first section in PT_GNU_RELRO segment, given the addresses
> >> of PT_GNU_RELRO segment. It is impossible to set address of the first
> >> section in PT_GNU_RELRO segment from lang_size_sections.
> > Look again at the code for exp_dataseg_relro_adjust. If you change
> > expld.dataseg.base there you will change addresses of sections in the
> > relro segment.
> But I don't want to change expld.dataseg.base. I just want to
> bump the address of the first section a bit.
This says to me that you haven't analyzed the current relro code.
That gives me no confidence that your patch is good for more that just
the testcase you submitted. It's clear to me that it will interact
with the existing exp_dataseg_relro_adjust code, perhaps badly in some
cases. I'm not going to OK a patch that makes the relro code even
more difficult to maintain.
Australia Development Lab, IBM