[Bug ld/31795] ld.bfd makes ELFs of type ET_EXEC for static PIEs when load address is non-0

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31795

--- Comment #49 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to mintsuki from comment #48)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #47)
> > (In reply to mintsuki from comment #46)
> > g.
> > > > 
> > > > Opt-in to ET_EXEC will be wrong.
> > > 
> > > Why will it be wrong? What if someone (me) wants to make a PIE that loads 
> > > at
> > 
> > It is wrong because -Ttext-segment=0x600000000000 no longer works.
> > 
> > > a minimum at the specified address, but can be relocated above it? 
> > > Currently
> > > ld makes this impossible by simply checking the ELF type, forcing my ELF
> > > loader to additionally check for the presence of the DF_1_PIE flag to 
> > > decide
> > > whether an ELF file is relocatable or not...
> > > 
> > > ...but Linux doesn't do that, apparently, but instead forces the load
> > > address to be the one specified, due to the ELF type being ET_EXEC.
> > > 
> > > Earlier you said I should check DF_1_PIE to determine relocatability... so
> > 
> > No, that was not what I said.  DF_1_PIE can be used to determine if a binary
> > is PIE.
> 
> Okay, then how can I make a *relocatable* aka ET_DYN (?) ELF file which is
> PIE and has a non-0 text segment load address using ld? This is, as far as
> my knowledge goes, *impossible* using GNU ld.bfd. Why?

Why can't you check DF_1_PIE for PIE?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.