https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31795
--- Comment #50 from mintsuki <mintsuki at protonmail dot com> --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #49) > (In reply to mintsuki from comment #48) > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #47) > > > (In reply to mintsuki from comment #46) > > > g. > > > > > > > > > > Opt-in to ET_EXEC will be wrong. > > > > > > > > Why will it be wrong? What if someone (me) wants to make a PIE that > > > > loads at > > > > > > It is wrong because -Ttext-segment=0x600000000000 no longer works. > > > > > > > a minimum at the specified address, but can be relocated above it? > > > > Currently > > > > ld makes this impossible by simply checking the ELF type, forcing my ELF > > > > loader to additionally check for the presence of the DF_1_PIE flag to > > > > decide > > > > whether an ELF file is relocatable or not... > > > > > > > > ...but Linux doesn't do that, apparently, but instead forces the load > > > > address to be the one specified, due to the ELF type being ET_EXEC. > > > > > > > > Earlier you said I should check DF_1_PIE to determine relocatability... > > > > so > > > > > > No, that was not what I said. DF_1_PIE can be used to determine if a > > > binary > > > is PIE. > > > > Okay, then how can I make a *relocatable* aka ET_DYN (?) ELF file which is > > PIE and has a non-0 text segment load address using ld? This is, as far as > > my knowledge goes, *impossible* using GNU ld.bfd. Why? > > 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
