https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18801
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Sriraman Tallam from comment #10) > > Isnt this similar to execstack in some sense? I presume SELinux > disallows that too but that we do not completely ban that on > non-secure OS. Since ld.so isn't changed, there is no run-time behavior change. > I dont understand this as much as you do but I like Paul's idea here: > > "I think it would be nice to have behavior other than what's currently > happening. Either ld.so should support TEXTREL binaries with IFUNCs, > or it should refuse to run them. ld.so isn't responsible for user errors. > I guess it could also try to make W+E page, and IF that fails, issue a > warning and change to current behavior. That way, a TEXTREL+IFUNC > binary will run correctly outside SELinux, will warn, then crash under > SELinux. A TEXTREL without IFUNC will also run correctly outside > SELinux, and will warn but still work under SELinux (i.e. almost same > as current behavior)." My ld patch issues an error: ./ld: read-only segment has dynamic IFUNC relocations; recompile with -fPIC or link with -z execstack Take your pick for workaround. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
