This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- From: Alexander Ivchenko <aivchenk at gmail dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at google dot com>, binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:10:12 +0400
- Subject: Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CACysShjNGcO=Y5ZU=QDLWetw31FRZUu7ZYbvo2DyJWZ+eOZZ2Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131129134722 dot GN9211 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAHACq4qbwykqOcTjuQovsqoE0d2dC4FAAtfZOxr=0XrYsViJqw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131203100957 dot GA3306 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CACysShi4sKtg_R6RAhGmgKs0qRuvbsU3fLpC-Hz27YMy-sGtrA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131203112323 dot GC3306 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CACysShiAr=iLP2Ju2dWsubV5USXxDhQitmydvRfC2=b07Fp7hA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CACysShiCkBdFOx233aBu02esXboe0dBTgf92grxUoEWRbNgUDQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CACysShjJS8sYZsPO3e8NL6ZTYXFmgiRTGNg=g_B4a8XDkaMXLw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOq7f6dh3zMSYR5xNFt=33SuiReL=WEHcGL3sGHK4Rxmtg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAHACq4p5_1XFYsZ_owztgtApUE5rE+QF3VQn-bGKDvVVpBwWeA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOosabiVovfMab0JwjFeu+UJxEb3BmqOUu=cO_Wyuh=oAA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAHACq4o52M9OrWnqz0USuQ_ViF8-YvPq2rLoAv1d47qCeG_PDQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOrYBpgb6DStbBCiX9jGhAgjJeDnMarZz+kqiH0MbiGsow at mail dot gmail dot com>
2013/12/9 Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Alexander Ivchenko <aivchenk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Indeed my problem with debugging was due to those missing 4 bytes
>> between .got.plt and .bss.
>> that lead to differences between stripped/not_stripped program headers
>> of the same binary:
>>
>>
>> not_stripped:
>> LOAD 0x003d60 0x00004d60 0x00004d60 *0x002a0* 0x002b0 RW 0x1000
>>
>> stripped:
>> LOAD 0x003d60 0x00004d60 0x00004d60 *0x0029c* 0x002b0 RW 0x1000
>
>
> I assume this is readelf -l output on your binary. It looks like the
> file size of the data segment has been changed by strip. That does
> seem odd, though since the memory size is unchanged it's not
> necessarily a problem. It depends on whether any initialized symbol
> is defined in those missing 4 bytes.
>
>
>> Still, one thing I still worry about. I see that gold is intentionally
>> making this padding.
>> I see in the code:
>>
>> Output_segment::set_section_addresses:
>>
>> // Pad the total relro size to a multiple of the maximum
>> // section alignment seen.
>> uint64_t aligned_size = align_address(relro_size, max_align);
>> // Note the amount of padding added after the last relro section.
>> last_relro_pad = aligned_size - relro_size;
>> *has_relro = true
>>
>> ... and then:
>>
>> *poff += last_relro_pad;
>> addr += last_relro_pad;
>> if (this->output_lists_[i].empty())
>> {
>> // If there is nothing in the ORDER_RELRO_LAST list,
>> // the padding will occur at the end of the relro
>> // segment, and we need to add it to *INCREASE_RELRO.
>> *increase_relro += last_relro_pad;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Since all stripped binaries in e.g. Android (at least that is true for
>> x86, may be other arch's are also affected), that were linked by gold,
>> are missing that padding, how critical that is?
>
> The relro data area must end at a page boundary, or the dynamic linker
> will not be able to mark it as read-only. Are you sure that is the
> problem, though? What does the GNU_RELRO program segment look like?
Between the stripped\unstripped versions of the binary that was the
only difference in segments from "readelf -l". The GNU_RELRO looks
like this:
GNU_RELRO 0x003d60 0x00004d60 0x00004d60 0x002a0 0x002a0 RW 0x20
> That padding code in gold was added here:
> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-10/msg00234.html . Part of
> the code is clearly required. I'm not sure it is essential to pad the
> relro size to a maximum of the section alignment, though in general it
> can't hurt.
>
> If the only change that strip introduces is a change in the file size
> of the data segment, and if no symbol refers to those bytes, and if
> the symbol values are unchanged, and if the RELRO segment is
> unchanged, then I would expect the resulting executable to work
> correctly.
I also noticed that after strip the SHF_INFO_LINK flag for .rel.plt disappeared:
before strip:
< [ 6] .rel.plt REL 000011c4 0011c4 000138 08
AI 2 7 4
after strip:
> [ 6] .rel.plt REL 000011c4 0011c4 000138 08 A 2 7 4
Again, I'm not sure how critical that is..
> But I agree it is odd for strip to be changing something here.
>
> Ian
Since gdb/gdbserver 7.6 is able to load debug info for those stripped
binaries, I don't know whether the issue that is solved in pr11786 has
something to do with that problem. However it is indeed looks pretty
similar.
H.J., I will try to come up with a smaller testcase.
Ideally, strip should not touch the padding after got.plt and any flags.
thanks,
Alexander
- References:
- Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping
- Re: [gold, strip] Question about the changed offset when stripping