[Bug ld/12921] sh_offset for SHT_NOBITS sections
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12921 --- Comment #12 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-24 14:03:19 UTC --- CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Changes by:h...@sourceware.org2011-06-24 14:03:16 Modified files: ld/testsuite : ChangeLog ld/testsuite/ld-i386: i386.exp ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64: x86-64.exp Added files: ld/testsuite/ld-i386: pr12921.d pr12921.s ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64: pr12921.d pr12921.s Log message: Add testcases for PR ld/12921. 2011-06-24 H.J. Lu PR ld/12921 * ld-i386/i386.exp: Run pr12921. * ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp: Likewise. * ld-i386/pr12921.d: New. * ld-i386/pr12921.s: Likewise. * ld-x86-64/pr12921.d: Likewise. * ld-x86-64/pr12921.s: Likewise. Patches: http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/ld/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.1433&r2=1.1434 http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/pr12921.d.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=NONE&r2=1.1 http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/pr12921.s.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=NONE&r2=1.1 http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/ld/testsuite/ld-i386/i386.exp.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.39&r2=1.40 http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr12921.d.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=NONE&r2=1.1 http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr12921.s.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=NONE&r2=1.1 http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.34&r2=1.35 -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/12921] sh_offset for SHT_NOBITS sections
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12921 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #11 from Alan Modra 2011-06-24 03:59:40 UTC --- Fixed -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/12921] sh_offset for SHT_NOBITS sections
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12921 --- Comment #9 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-24 03:36:44 UTC --- CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Changes by:amo...@sourceware.org2011-06-24 03:36:40 Modified files: bfd: ChangeLog elf.c Log message: PR ld/12921 * elf.c (assign_file_positions_for_load_sections): Don't align sh_offset for all SHT_NOBITS sections here, just .tbss sections that don't get a PT_LOAD. Patches: http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/bfd/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.5399&r2=1.5400 http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/bfd/elf.c.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.541&r2=1.542 -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/12921] sh_offset for SHT_NOBITS sections
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12921 --- Comment #10 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-24 03:39:35 UTC --- CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Branch: binutils-2_21-branch Changes by:amo...@sourceware.org2011-06-24 03:39:32 Modified files: bfd: ChangeLog elf.c Log message: PR ld/12921 * elf.c (assign_file_positions_for_load_sections): Don't align sh_offset for all SHT_NOBITS sections here, just .tbss sections that don't get a PT_LOAD. Patches: http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/bfd/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=src&only_with_tag=binutils-2_21-branch&r1=1.5180.2.36&r2=1.5180.2.37 http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/bfd/elf.c.diff?cvsroot=src&only_with_tag=binutils-2_21-branch&r1=1.524.2.3&r2=1.524.2.4 -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/12921] sh_offset for SHT_NOBITS sections
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12921 --- Comment #7 from Alan Modra 2011-06-23 15:31:32 UTC --- Created attachment 5813 --> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5813 possible fix I'll run the testsuite overnight with my big list of targets to see how this goes. -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/12921] sh_offset for SHT_NOBITS sections
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12921 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-06-23 15:52:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > Created attachment 5813 [details] > possible fix > > I'll run the testsuite overnight with my big list of targets to see how this > goes. We also need a testcase for this bug. -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/12921] sh_offset for SHT_NOBITS sections
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12921 --- Comment #6 from Alan Modra 2011-06-23 15:08:03 UTC --- Actually older binutils do give cases of sh_offset past end of file. ld/testsuite/ld-elf/tbss3.s assembled and linked with older binutils gives .tbss with sh_offset past end of file. The same file s/tbss/bss/ and correct .bss section flags and you'll see the same thing with .bss. Now, if I revert the elf.c part of http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-05/msg00299.html you'll have what you want for your testcase, but then in the tbss3.s case .tbss will have sh_offset of zero and PT_TLS segment will have p_offset of zero. Not that there is anything really wrong with a zero for sh_offset of SHT_NOBITS sections or zero p_offset for zero p_filesz headers. In fact that would be the logical value to choose for a section/header that doesn't have contents in the file. I wonder what would break if we did that for all such sections and headers? Probably quite a lot, which is why I was trying to set sh_offset to as unsurprising a value as I thought possible. I chose such that sh_addr % sh_align == sh_offset % sh_align to make the tbss3 testcase give the same sh_offset and p_offset as older linkers. -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/12921] sh_offset for SHT_NOBITS sections
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12921 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-06-23 13:41:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > The intention of prelink --undo is that it reverts the binary/shared library > to > the original, bitwise, content. During prelinking the binary/shared library > usually grows, and on undo prelink feeds the saved ElfXX_Shdr/ElfXX_Phdr etc. > content to libelf to restore the file. And, apparently sh_offset beyond end > of > file mean at least for elfutils libelf that it pads with zeros up to that > spot. > It is too bad that we didn't have a testcase binutils so that we would have prevented it from happening. When this bug is fixed, we should also add a testcase. -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/12921] sh_offset for SHT_NOBITS sections
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12921 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-23 13:55:28 UTC --- Sure, at least it got caught by prelink testsuite. -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/12921] sh_offset for SHT_NOBITS sections
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12921 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-23 07:32:34 UTC --- The intention of prelink --undo is that it reverts the binary/shared library to the original, bitwise, content. During prelinking the binary/shared library usually grows, and on undo prelink feeds the saved ElfXX_Shdr/ElfXX_Phdr etc. content to libelf to restore the file. And, apparently sh_offset beyond end of file mean at least for elfutils libelf that it pads with zeros up to that spot. Of course one could probably tweak libelf (haven't tried the other implementation how it behaves nor looked how hard would it be), but the question is why is such an sh_offset desirable. When the section has no content in the file (SHT_NOBITS or zero sized section), why can't sh_offset simply be what it used to (either equal to sh_offset of the next section, or of last section + its in the file size)? -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/12921] sh_offset for SHT_NOBITS sections
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12921 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||amodra at gmail dot com AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at gmail dot com |redhat.com | --- Comment #1 from Alan Modra 2011-06-23 00:27:06 UTC --- This is most likely http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-05/msg00299.html Why on earth does prelink write to a SHT_NOBITS section? Incidentally, we've put bss sh_offset potentially past end of file for a very long time. The recent change just made it visible in cases where the bss section got its own PT_LOAD header (due to alignment). -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/12921] sh_offset for SHT_NOBITS sections
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12921 --- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2011-06-23 00:29:02 UTC --- No, that last comment was wrong. It wasn't sh_offset but header p_offset that could be past end of file. -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
