Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 13/23] XENVER_build_id: Provide ld-embedded build-ids (v10)

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 24/02/16 18:52, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/xen.lds.S b/xen/arch/arm/xen.lds.S
>>> index f501a2f..5cf180f 100644
>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/xen.lds.S
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/xen.lds.S
>>> @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ OUTPUT_ARCH(FORMAT)
>>>  PHDRS
>>>  {
>>>    text PT_LOAD /* XXX should be AT ( XEN_PHYS_START ) */ ;
>>> +#if defined(BUILD_ID)
>>> +  note PT_NOTE ;
>>> +#endif
>>>  }
>>>  SECTIONS
>>>  {
>>> @@ -53,6 +56,16 @@ SECTIONS
>>>          _erodata = .;          /* End of read-only data */
>>>    } :text
>>>  
>>> +#if defined(BUILD_ID)
>>> +  .note : {
>>> +       __note_gnu_build_id_start = .;
>>> +       *(.note.gnu.build-id)
>>> +       __note_gnu_build_id_end = .;
>>> +       *(.note)
>>> +       *(.note.*)
>>> +  } :text
>>> +#endif
>> This data really should be contained inside rodata.
> I get (I replace :text with :rodata) and got:
> ld: section `.note' assigned to non-existent phdr `rodata'
>
> Which makes sense as there are only two PHDRS. Where you suggesting that
> the .note should be part of the .rodata section? Jan wanted this to be
> in its own section (.note).
>
> Are you suggesting to add another one PHDR? (If so, then mkelf32 has to be 
> modified,
> and for EFI I think it will have to have some #ifdef machinery to make it 
> work).

I was just suggesting moving _erodata down a little to cover .note

Whatever happens patching-wise, this build ID is constant and will want
to remain so.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel