This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
Hi,
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> glibc 2.28 assumes that no 4-byte-aligned PT_NOTE segments contain GNU
> property notes and will search for such notes in 8-byte aligned segments
> only. The glibc changes were formally reviewed and checked for
> interoperability with BFD ld. I think we have (had) community consensus
> for them.
Not really. You had one person favoring 8byte alignment (variously
because the gABI says so, even though that's irrelevant for .gnu.note,
and/or because then int64 accesses can be used without having to write a
read_int64 macro that deals with unalignment), and the rest either
ignoring this or saying "ugh, bad idea, breaks compatibility and breaks
forward compat because not self-describing anymore". The former put in
work to implement 8byte alignment, ignoring the compat issues. Now you
actually see those issues. Everybody looses. That's what you get if
people create facts before consensus.
Ciao,
Michael.
- References:
- PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold (was: Re: [PATCH] Document GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_[USED|NEEDED])
- Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold (was: Re: [PATCH] Document GNU_PROPERTY_X86_ISA_1_[USED|NEEDED])
- Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
- Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
- Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
- Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
- Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
- Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
- Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
- Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
- Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold
- Re: PT_NOTE alignment, NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0, glibc and gold