Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/vdso: Should VDSO64 functions be flagged as functions like VDSO32 ?
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Date: 2024-10-09 03:45:18
Also in:
lkml
Christophe Leroy [off-list ref] writes:
Hi Michael, Le 18/09/2024 à 04:33, Michael Ellerman a écrit :quoted
Christophe Leroy [off-list ref] writes:quoted
On powerpc64 as shown below by readelf, vDSO functions symbols have type NOTYPE. $ powerpc64-linux-gnu-readelf -a arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso/vdso64.so.dbg ELF Header: Magic: 7f 45 4c 46 02 02 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Class: ELF64 Data: 2's complement, big endian Version: 1 (current) OS/ABI: UNIX - System V ABI Version: 0 Type: DYN (Shared object file) Machine: PowerPC64 Version: 0x1 ... Symbol table '.dynsym' contains 12 entries: Num: Value Size Type Bind Vis Ndx Name ... 1: 0000000000000524 84 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 8 __[...]@@LINUX_2.6.15 ... 4: 0000000000000000 0 OBJECT GLOBAL DEFAULT ABS LINUX_2.6.15 5: 00000000000006c0 48 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 8 __[...]@@LINUX_2.6.15 Symbol table '.symtab' contains 56 entries: Num: Value Size Type Bind Vis Ndx Name ... 45: 0000000000000000 0 OBJECT GLOBAL DEFAULT ABS LINUX_2.6.15 46: 00000000000006c0 48 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 8 __kernel_getcpu 47: 0000000000000524 84 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 8 __kernel_clock_getres To overcome that, commit ba83b3239e65 ("selftests: vDSO: fix vDSO symbols lookup for powerpc64") was proposed to make selftests also look for NOTYPE symbols, but is it the correct fix ? VDSO32 functions are flagged as functions, why not VDSO64 functions ? Is it because VDSO functions are not traditional C functions using the standard API ?Yes. There's some explanation in the original commit: Note that the symbols exposed by the vDSO aren't "normal" function symbols, apps can't be expected to link against them directly, the vDSO's are both seen as if they were linked at 0 and the symbols just contain offsets to the various functions. This is done on purpose to avoid a relocation step (ppc64 functions normally have descriptors with abs addresses in them). When glibc uses those functions, it's expected to use it's own trampolines that know how to reach them. From https://github.com/mpe/linux-fullhistory/commit/5f2dd691b62da9d9cc54b938f8b29c22c93cb805 The descriptors it's talking about are the OPD function descriptors used on ABI v1 (big endian).quoted
But it is exactly the same for VDSO32 functions, allthough they are flagged as functions.It's not quite the same because of the function descriptors. On ppc64/ABIv1 a function pointer for "F" points to an opd, which then points to ".F" which has the actual text. It's the ".F" symbol that has type "function".quoted
So lets flag them as functions and revert the selftest change. What's your opinion on that ?I think it's fine on ppc64le, I worry slightly that it risks breaking glibc or something else on big endian. It is more correct for the text symbol to have type function, even if there's no function descriptor for it. glibc has a special case already for handling the VDSO symbols which creates a fake opd pointing at the kernel symbol. So changing the VDSO symbol type to function shouldn't affect that AFAICS. I think the only cause of breakage would be if something is explicitly looking for NOTYPE symbols, which seems unlikely, but you never know. So I think we could attempt to take this change for v6.13, giving it lots of time to get some test coverage in next before going to mainline.Will you take the RFC as is for 6.13 or would you like me to include the above explainations and repost as non-RFC ?
If you can come up with a consolidated changelog and post a non-RFC version that would help, thanks. cheers