* H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05/12/16 15:54, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> It would be far better to warn on the *type* of relocations rather than in
> >> which section they feel.
> >
> > I'm open to specific changes. What's the best way to detect what you want
> > here?
> >
>
> Use readelf -r and look for inappropriate relocation types (which are
> basically the same ones that we should have to muck with for the main
> kernel in relocs.c.)
I suspect initially we are good if we don't allow any relocations in
arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux:
fomalhaut:~/linux/linux> readelf -r arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux | grep -q
'There are no relocations in this file' ; echo $?
0
versus a regular object file with lots of relocations:
fomalhaut:~/linux/linux> readelf -r arch/x86/built-in.o | grep -q 'There are
no relocations in this file' ; echo $?
1
I.e. the relevant portion of Kees's patch would do something like:
quiet_cmd_check_data_rel = DATAREL $@
define cmd_check_data_rel
for obj in $(filter %.o,$^); do \
readelf -r $$obj | grep -qF 'There are no relocations in this
file' && exit 0 || { \
echo "error: $$obj has data relocations!" >&2; \
exit 1; \
} \
done
endef
(totally untested)
Agreed?
Thanks,
Ingo
