[Bug ld/17592] x86-64 linker generates wrong PLT for large model
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17592 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sam at gentoo dot org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/17592] x86-64 linker generates wrong PLT for large model
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17592 Evandro Menezes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||evandro at yahoo dot com --- Comment #8 from Evandro Menezes --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7) > I also want to support larger code size in small model. Put .plt after .text > will help small model. I will implement large PLT for large model. Methinks that it's more appealing to maintain a single PLT template, regardless of the model, and have sparse segments to support text-ro-plt-got. The overhead in the memory space should be insignificant if done only in the large code model. -- 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/17592] x86-64 linker generates wrong PLT for large model
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17592 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #5) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4) > > When there is a large readonly section, it makes no differences between > > > > text, plt, readonly, got > > > > and > > > > text, readonly, plt, got > > > > since text needs to reach plt and plt needs to reach got. > > Yes, but text reaching PLT is trivial with the large code model. But PLT > reaching GOT requires changing the PLT layout. The reason for my idea > of moving the PLT was to avoid doing that. And with a large readonly only > the latter layout achieves that. So I think that should be the default > layout. I also want to support larger code size in small model. Put .plt after .text will help small model. I will implement large PLT for large model. -- 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/17592] x86-64 linker generates wrong PLT for large model
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17592 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #5) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4) > > When there is a large readonly section, it makes no differences between > > > > text, plt, readonly, got > > > > and > > > > text, readonly, plt, got > > > > since text needs to reach plt and plt needs to reach got. > > Yes, but text reaching PLT is trivial with the large code model. But PLT > reaching GOT requires changing the PLT layout. The reason for my idea > of moving the PLT was to avoid doing that. And with a large readonly only > the latter layout achieves that. So I think that should be the default > layout. Putting readonly data between text makes this even worse: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16685 -- 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/17592] x86-64 linker generates wrong PLT for large model
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17592 --- Comment #5 from Michael Matz --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4) > When there is a large readonly section, it makes no differences between > > text, plt, readonly, got > > and > > text, readonly, plt, got > > since text needs to reach plt and plt needs to reach got. Yes, but text reaching PLT is trivial with the large code model. But PLT reaching GOT requires changing the PLT layout. The reason for my idea of moving the PLT was to avoid doing that. And with a large readonly only the latter layout achieves that. So I think that should be the default layout. -- 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/17592] x86-64 linker generates wrong PLT for large model
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17592 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #3) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2) > > It is an interesting idea. > > Yeah, that's how I tested the large model back in the days when I implemented > some of it. Never got around to actually change the PLT layout. > > > If we place .plt just after .text, there > > may be readonly sections before .got, the distance between .plt and > > .got.plt can still be big. > > Yes, unfortunately. > > > If we place .plt just before .got, the > > text segment will have text, readonly data and followed by text. Do > > we want to do that? > > At least it wouldn't change the executable view of the ELF files, those > sections would still be contained in the read-only-exec segment. Also the > GNU_RELRO (writable, but only during loading) part could be moved after .got. > Thereby .got would be first in the RW segment and .plt last in the RE > segment, > right next to each other. When there is a large readonly section, it makes no differences between text plt readonly got and text readonly plt got since text needs to reach plt and plt needs to reach got. We should go with text plt readonly got I will prepare a patch. -- 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/17592] x86-64 linker generates wrong PLT for large model
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17592 --- Comment #3 from Michael Matz --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2) > It is an interesting idea. Yeah, that's how I tested the large model back in the days when I implemented some of it. Never got around to actually change the PLT layout. > If we place .plt just after .text, there > may be readonly sections before .got, the distance between .plt and > .got.plt can still be big. Yes, unfortunately. > If we place .plt just before .got, the > text segment will have text, readonly data and followed by text. Do > we want to do that? At least it wouldn't change the executable view of the ELF files, those sections would still be contained in the read-only-exec segment. Also the GNU_RELRO (writable, but only during loading) part could be moved after .got. Thereby .got would be first in the RW segment and .plt last in the RE segment, right next to each other. -- 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/17592] x86-64 linker generates wrong PLT for large model
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17592 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #1) > Back in http://www.sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2006-03/msg00276.html > I suggested to place .plt after .text so that PLT and GOT are nearer > to each other. In that case the large PLT layout would only need to > be used if there were more that 100 million PLT slots (and GOT entry). > It is an interesting idea. If we place .plt just after .text, there may be readonly sections before .got, the distance between .plt and .got.plt can still be big. If we place .plt just before .got, the text segment will have text, readonly data and followed by text. Do we want to do that? -- 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/17592] x86-64 linker generates wrong PLT for large model
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17592 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matz at suse dot de --- Comment #1 from Michael Matz --- Back in http://www.sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2006-03/msg00276.html I suggested to place .plt after .text so that PLT and GOT are nearer to each other. In that case the large PLT layout would only need to be used if there were more that 100 million PLT slots (and GOT entry). Nevertheless, for full large model support you're right, the large PLT layout needs to be implemented. -- 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
