This is the mail archive of the
elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
mailing list for the elfutils project.
Re: Another relocation oddness
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: elfutils-devel at lists dot fedorahosted dot org
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:52:50 +0200
- Subject: Re: Another relocation oddness
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:42:22 +0200, Roland McGrath wrote:
> So, the "more than complete enough" checking plan (i.e. where you bother
> with reloc checks in non-ET_REL at all) would be as follows. For a reloc
> in an SHT_REL (not SHT_RELA) section in a non-ET_REL file, subtract the
> symbol value (and barf if it's SHN_UNDEF)--note that since it's an ET_REL,
> the st_value is the final value directly, not section-relative. If there
> is an SHT_REL,SHF_ALLOC section that applies to the section you are
> checking, complain and punt (however you would if all its relocs were
> unknown types or whatnot). (If the SHT_REL,SHF_ALLOC section has a target
> section that is not SHF_ALLOC, elflint should complain about that.)
FYI there was a GDB discussion about ET_EXEC relocations (in vmlinux),
Alan Modra's advice from it:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2006-08/msg00144.html
But IIUC the checking vs. relocating operations are orthogonal here.
Regards,
Jan