This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: Properly handle protected function for ia32 and x86_64
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>,Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:14:21 +1030
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Properly handle protected function for ia32 and x86_64
- References: <20050120015519.GA3810@bubble.modra.org> <20050120031709.GA7990@lucon.org> <20050120042234.GB3810@bubble.modra.org> <20050120063839.GA9529@lucon.org> <jewtu8tne4.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20050120173353.GA16486@lucon.org> <20050124232617.GA18791@lucon.org> <hod5vnqkre.fsf@reger.suse.de> <20050201045110.GO11595@bubble.modra.org> <20050201055018.GA5076@lucon.org>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:50:18PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 03:21:10PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > I'm not happy with the i386 one, because conceptually there isn't any
> > reason why the GOT of a shared library can't contain an entry for a
> > protected symbol. I believe such a shared lib will work properly, so it
> > isn't appropriate to issue an error. The problem occurs when an
> > executable tries to reference such a symbol, and copy relocs are
> > involved.
>
> Please check it again. It is R_386_GOTOFF against protected FUNCTION
> symbol. It has nothing to do with copy relocation. It is the function
> pointer problem with protected function.
OK, I misunderstood the problem. Do you have a testcase?
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre