This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: RFC: PATCHES: Properly handle reference to protected data on x86
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:45:49 +1030
- Subject: Re: RFC: PATCHES: Properly handle reference to protected data on x86
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMe9rOoKS4BwBSd2T+bcchYOykZ7Gzh2jCMC5J6r0qyEX1u0_Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150306041931 dot GE25172 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CAMe9rOqjWSWgiaGKrQjkAMymFFETF-uSwnWUWOxwJpS58arzEg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 05:04:56AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 03:26:10PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> Protected symbol means that it can't be pre-emptied. It
> >> doesn't mean its address won't be external. This is true
> >> for pointer to protected function. With copy relocation,
> >> address of protected data defined in the shared library may
> >> also be external. We only know that for sure at run-time.
> >> Here are patches for glibc, binutils and GCC to handle it
> >> properly.
> >>
> >> Any comments?
> >
> > I'd like to see this pass some more tests. For example
> >
> > reference in non-PIC exe to var x
> > protected visibility definition of x in libA
> > protected visibility definition of x in libB
> >
> > I suspect you don't have this case correct, but congratulations if you
> > do! Assuming libA is first on the breadth first search for libraries,
> > then exe and libA ought to use the same x, but libB have its own x.
>
> I believe my new testcases on hjl/pr17711 branch at
>
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=summary
>
> covers those and they work correctly.
The test that I see in commit 9ea148bb does not. Please notice that
I'm asking you about two protected definitions in the libraries, not
one protected and one with default visibility.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM