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

[mintsuki at protonmail dot com]

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

--- Comment #57 from mintsuki <mintsuki at protonmail dot com> ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #55)
> (In reply to mintsuki from comment #54)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #52)
> > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #51)
> > > > (In reply to mintsuki from comment #50)
> > > > 
> > > > > > Why can't you check DF_1_PIE for PIE?
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is what I do now, but to check for *relocatability*. PIE in and 
> > > > > of
> > > > > itself is not something that tells me whether I should relocate (for 
> > > > > KASLR
> > > > > for example) or not. That is what you just said.
> > > > 
> > > > If DF_1_PIE is set, the binary can be relocated to any address. What 
> > > > did I
> > > > miss?
> > > 
> > > The first PT_LOAD segment has non-0 p_vaddr, the program may misbehave if
> > > the load address != p_vaddr.
> > 
> > How is this possible? Under which circumstances? It works fine with all the
> > other linkers for me.
> 
> It works for your programs doesn't mean that it works all programs some of
> which
> won't correctly if ET_DYN is used.

Which? Under which circumstances? Do you have an example that doesn't involve
Linux/glibc? Is this an actual ELF/toolchain issue, or is it some Linux/glibc
specific issue? If the latter is the case, why on earth is this being worked
around in binutils rather than fixed in Linux/glibc?

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