From: Fangrui Song <mask...@google.com>
[ Upstream commit bb73d07148c405c293e576b40af37737faf23a6a ]
This is similar to commit
b21ebf2fb4cd ("x86: Treat R_X86_64_PLT32 as R_X86_64_PC32")
but for i386. As far as the kernel is concerned, R_386_PLT32 can be
treated the same as R_386_PC32.
R_386_PLT32/R_X86_64_PLT32 are PC-relative relocation types which
can only be used by branches. If the referenced symbol is defined
externally, a PLT will be used.
R_386_PC32/R_X86_64_PC32 are PC-relative relocation types which can be
used by address taking operations and branches. If the referenced symbol
is defined externally, a copy relocation/canonical PLT entry will be
created in the executable.
On x86-64, there is no PIC vs non-PIC PLT distinction and an
R_X86_64_PLT32 relocation is produced for both `call/jmp foo` and
`call/jmp foo@PLT` with newer (2018) GNU as/LLVM integrated assembler.
This avoids canonical PLT entries (st_shndx=0, st_value!=0).
On i386, there are 2 types of PLTs, PIC and non-PIC. Currently,
the GCC/GNU as convention is to use R_386_PC32 for non-PIC PLT and
R_386_PLT32 for PIC PLT. Copy relocations/canonical PLT entries
are possible ABI issues but GCC/GNU as will likely keep the status
quo because (1) the ABI is legacy (2) the change will drop a GNU
ld diagnostic for non-default visibility ifunc in shared objects.
clang-12 -fno-pic (since [1]) can emit R_386_PLT32 for compiler
generated function declarations, because preventing canonical PLT
entries is weighed over the rare ifunc diagnostic.
Further info for the more interested:
https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1210
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27169
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a084c0388e2a59b9556f2de0083333232da3f1d6
[1]
[ bp: Massage commit message. ]
Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Fangrui Song <mask...@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <b...@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulni...@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancel...@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulni...@google.com>
Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancel...@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.di...@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210127205600.1227437-1-mask...@google.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sas...@kernel.org>
---
arch/x86/kernel/module.c | 1 +
arch/x86/tools/relocs.c | 12 ++++++++----
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/module.c b/arch/x86/kernel/module.c
index 34b153cbd4acb..5e9a34b5bd741 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/module.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/module.c
@@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ int apply_relocate(Elf32_Shdr *sechdrs,
*location += sym->st_value;
break;
case R_386_PC32:
+ case R_386_PLT32:
/* Add the value, subtract its position */
*location += sym->st_value - (uint32_t)location;
break;
diff --git a/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c b/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c
index ce7188cbdae58..1c3a1962cade6 100644
--- a/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c
+++ b/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c
@@ -867,9 +867,11 @@ static int do_reloc32(struct section *sec, Elf_Rel *rel,
Elf_Sym *sym,
case R_386_PC32:
case R_386_PC16:
case R_386_PC8:
+ case R_386_PLT32:
/*
- * NONE can be ignored and PC relative relocations don't
- * need to be adjusted.
+ * NONE can be ignored and PC relative relocations don't need
+ * to be adjusted. Because sym must be defined, R_386_PLT32 can
+ * be treated the same way as R_386_PC32.
*/
break;
@@ -910,9 +912,11 @@ static int do_reloc_real(struct section *sec, Elf_Rel
*rel, Elf_Sym *sym,
case R_386_PC32:
case R_386_PC16:
case R_386_PC8:
+ case R_386_PLT32:
/*
- * NONE can be ignored and PC relative relocations don't
- * need to be adjusted.
+ * NONE can be ignored and PC relative relocations don't need
+ * to be adjusted. Because sym must be defined, R_386_PLT32 can
+ * be treated the same way as R_386_PC32.
*/
break;
--
2.27.0
