RE: Debugging MIPS PIE executables

[Felix Radensky <felix dot radensky at broadcom dot com>]

Hi Matthew,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Fortune [mailto:Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 11:10 AM
> To: Felix Radensky; binutils@sourceware.org
> Subject: RE: Debugging MIPS PIE executables
> 
> Felix Radensky <felix.radensky@broadcom.com> writes:
> > Hi Matthew,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Matthew Fortune [mailto:Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 11:10 AM
> > > To: Felix Radensky; binutils@sourceware.org
> > > Subject: RE: Debugging MIPS PIE executables
> > >
> > > Hi Felix,
> > >
> > > Felix Radensky <felix.radensky@broadcom.com> writes:
> > > > I was wondering if any progress was made to resolve the problem
> > > > discussed in the following threads:
> > > >
> > > > https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2013-06/msg00183.html
> > > > https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2014-10/msg00200.html
> > > >
> > > > Are there any experimental patches for binutils/gdb/glibc that I
> > can
> > > > try ? PIE executables are must in many security-conscious
> > > > projects, and the lack of ability to debug them is a serious problem.
> > >
> > > This request has come up a few times again recently and I am hoping
> > to
> > > submit patches for this in the coming week. I still have not managed
> > > to build a PIE version of glibc which is a bit of a blocker. I'm
> > > currently trying to use HJ's recent patches to support PIE by
> > > default from GCC but now have link assertions in glibc instead of
> > > reloc
> > failures.
> > >
> > > I have binutils and gdb patches that have been used with bionic but
> > > they still need some cleaning up.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for a prompt reply. I'm looking forward to test your
> > patches.
> 
> I've attached the patches I intend to submit but I still have to work through the
> binutils testsuite to account for the new tag and try to write a useful test case.
> I'll also need to get advice on doing a GDB test for this as I don't know if/how to
> do that.
> 
> The patches are manually tested for o32/n32/n64 PIE and ordinary executables
> with the expected behaviour that new PIEs with new ld.so show the correct
> library list.
> 
> I'm travelling on business for the next week so may not be able to get through
> the testing part of this. Let me know if you find any issues with these.
> 

Thanks a lot for your support. I'll test your patches ASAP and report back.

Felix.