Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200524212816.243139-1-nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
 <20200525225918.1624470-1-nivedita@alum.mit.edu> <CA+icZUVa8FhhwHgXn1o_hFmgqFG6-KE1F+qvkdCzQjmSSSDWDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMj1kXHVFgRsbssJQD2C0GZnOgG=rMYbPGJQtiKhSw6sZj5PaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+icZUWyFDgieQswvfhWemzymDh_UiVqH2uH52a+0otcr2Pd4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+icZUVKRZPFX_Q8RRJnFsHrkM5VbiWUEam+6O5XSzgNaqAzPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200526144748.GA2190602@rani.riverdale.lan> <CA+icZUUY7a5XGwcQQ511OeoTjOzWbrgF8BZdTrLDK09QWG4hwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200526153636.GD2190602@rani.riverdale.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20200526153636.GD2190602@rani.riverdale.lan>
Reply-To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com
From:   Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 17:38:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+icZUUtdT+zV7Y9LM9qRxUSVPuOsf2EQMToLdF-fwrageWpKA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86/boot: Remove runtime relocations from
 compressed kernel
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com>,
        Dmitry Golovin <dima@golovin.in>,
        Clang-Built-Linux ML <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:36 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 04:50:38PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:47 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:44:29PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Are those diffs correct when using "x86/boot: Correct relocation
> > > > destination on old linkers"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It looks ok, but that patch (and even marking the other symbols .hidden)
> > > should be unnecessary after this series.
> >
> > You mean _bss, _ebss and _end?
> >
> > - Sedat -
>
> Yes. Those .hidden markings are there to ensure that when relocations
> are generated (as they are currently), they're generated as
> R_386_RELATIVE (which uses B+A calculation, with A being the link-time
> virtual address of the symbol, and stored in the relocation field)
> rather than R_386_32 (which uses S+A calculation, and so doesn't work
> without runtime processing). After this patchset there aren't any
> relocations, so while the .hidden markings won't hurt, they won't be
> necessary either.
>

So, I am here on Debian/testing AMD64.

How can I test the patchset worked correctly?

- Sedat -