Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]
Alan Modra
amodra@gmail.com
Mon Apr 18 14:49:00 GMT 2016
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Mon Apr 18 14:49:00 GMT 2016
- Previous message (by thread): Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]
- Next message (by thread): Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > To summarize: there is currently no testcase for a wrong-code issue > because there is no wrong-code issue. That depends entirely on how far you are willing to bend the ELF gABI. Any testcase the takes the address of a protected visibility variable defined in a shared library now can get the wrong answer, since you can argue that any address outside the shared library is wrong according to the gABI. I expect you can also write a testcase using a const protected var in a shared library that ought to segfault on writing to the var from code within the shared library, that now merrily writes to a .dynbss copy. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM
- Previous message (by thread): Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]
- Next message (by thread): Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list