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;
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:27:59 -0400
To:     Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.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>,
        Dmitry Golovin <dima@golovin.in>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl@sourceware.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] x86/boot: Check that there are no runtime
 relocations
Message-ID: <20200630232759.GA2641539@rani.riverdale.lan>
References: <202006290907.E5EF18A@keescook>
 <CAMj1kXFge5aWL2BY8Y1=m1TonB+SrDq6p7TQWuO5JkzcR2dhjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <202006290919.93C759C62@keescook>
 <20200629165603.GD900899@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <20200629173735.l3ssrj7m3q5swfup@google.com>
 <CAMj1kXHaXzYFkW_H=w36vMb1qPpuZXsnTd_giq4vsh0bw3S3eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200629233405.n56yb4xwlgxrt3fn@google.com>
 <CAMj1kXGTOdNiuU70pFB74UJ6z43AM-UViTSd3=ATV=94W+f1RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200630175408.GA2301688@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <20200630220043.4snabunhgvfdktte@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200630220043.4snabunhgvfdktte@google.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 03:00:43PM -0700, Fangrui Song wrote:
> * Ard Biesheuvel
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 01:34, Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com> wrote:
> 
> If the executable is purely static, it does not need to have PLT. All
> calls to a PLT can be redirected to the function itself.  Some range
> extension thunks (other terms: stub groups, veneers, etc) may still be
> needed if the distance is too large.
> 
> There are cases where a GOT cannot be avoided, e.g.
> 
> extern char foo[] __attribute__((weak, visibility("hidden")));
> char *fun() { return foo; }
> 
> If foo is a SHN_ABS, `movq foo@GOTPCREL(%rip), %rax` can't be optimized
> by GOTPCRELX (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25749 binutils>=2.35 will be good)
> Many other architectures don't even have a GOT optimization.

Urk -- the example given in that bug report isn't even weak. Are you
guys proposing to pessimize every access to a global symbol, regardless
of visibility, by going through the GOT on the off chance that somebody
might define one of them as SHN_ABS? Can we at least gate it behind
something like __attribute__((might_be_shn_abs))?

> 
> >I don't think it's really relevant for the kernel build -- all we get is
> >ld -static --no-dynamic-linker, all -static does is prevent searching
> >shared libraries, and we already pass --no-dynamic-linker if it's
> >supported.
> >
> >[0] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81498