[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180718205057.GQ1392@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:50:57 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Segmentation fault in static binaries built with
recent binutils
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:19:28PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> [2018-07-18 21:38:34 +0200]:
> > seems like another musl-gcc wrapper issue, if i do the linking
> > manually then i get a working binary, havent yet figured out why
> >
> > manual linking:
> >
> > Program Headers:
> > Type Offset VirtAddr PhysAddr FileSiz MemSiz Flg Align
> > LOAD 0x000000 0x0000000000400000 0x0000000000400000 0x0001ec 0x0001ec R 0x1000
> > LOAD 0x001000 0x0000000000401000 0x0000000000401000 0x0005a4 0x0005a4 R E 0x1000
> > LOAD 0x002000 0x0000000000402000 0x0000000000402000 0x00004c 0x00004c R 0x1000
> > LOAD 0x002ff0 0x0000000000403ff0 0x0000000000403ff0 0x000018 0x0002a8 RW 0x1000
> > NOTE 0x0001c8 0x00000000004001c8 0x00000000004001c8 0x000024 0x000024 R 0x4
> > GNU_STACK 0x000000 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000 0x000000 RW 0x10
> > GNU_RELRO 0x002ff0 0x0000000000403ff0 0x0000000000403ff0 0x000010 0x000010 R 0x1
> >
> > musl-gcc linking:
> >
> > Program Headers:
> > Type Offset VirtAddr PhysAddr FileSiz MemSiz Flg Align
> > LOAD 0x001000 0x0000000000401000 0x0000000000401000 0x0005a4 0x0005a4 R E 0x1000
> > LOAD 0x002000 0x0000000000402000 0x0000000000402000 0x00004c 0x00004c R 0x1000
> > LOAD 0x002ff0 0x0000000000403ff0 0x0000000000403ff0 0x000018 0x0002a8 RW 0x1000
> > GNU_STACK 0x000000 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x000000 0x000000 RW 0x10
> > GNU_RELRO 0x002ff0 0x0000000000403ff0 0x0000000000403ff0 0x000010 0x000010 R 0x1
>
> the difference between the two cases was --build-id
>
> --build-id=sha1 works, --build-id=none segfaults
>
> i assume the note section with the build id happens
> to force ld to keep the initial load segment, but
> that should be there without any note section, so
> it's likely a binutils bug (i see it on 2.30 and
> master branch too)
So am I understanding correctly that binutils ld is considering the
program headers section not to be something that has to live in loaded
memory? And it's putting a whole 4k of padding below the first load
segment? These both seem to be significant bugs.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
