Ping.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:18:47AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the > following post to the GCC list: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-06/msg00008.html > > So far, I've been prototyping static PIE support by having GCC pass > the following options to ld instead of -static -pie: > > -static -shared -Bsymbolic > > This partly works, but since ld does not know it's producing a main > executable, it misses important details, including the ability to link > initial-exec and local-exec model TLS code correctly, as well as > various linking optimizations. So I think the right way forward is > making ld accept -static and -pie together to do the right thing. > > In elflink.c, _bfd_elf_link_create_dynamic_sections assumes that > executables should always have a .interp section. > bfd_elf_size_dynamic_sections asserts this assumption again, and the > individual elf??-*.c files also do so in *_elf_size_dynamic_sections > where they set a default interpreter. (Is this even useful? Most of > the names are out of touch with reality, and GCC always passes an > explicit -dynamic-linker anyway, so I think this code should just be > removed.) > > Now I have a working prototype by changing the info->executable > condition to info->executable && info->dynamic, and having lexsup.c > store the value of input_flags.dynamic in link_info.dynamic after > processing the command line, but I'm not sure if this is the right > approach. > > An alternative seems to be using a separate set of linker scripts to > throw away the .interp section when the output is static PIE. I tested > this a long time ago with some success (see > http://stackoverflow.com/a/10545163/379897 which shows a method) but > it seems like a hack. > > Can anyone offer feedback on my approach and whether it would be > acceptable for upstream? > > Rich
