On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:25:31 +0000 Nick Clifton <ni...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Nicholas, > > >> ... this actually seems like a better fix to me. If you do not want the > >> PT_INTERP segment, then telling this linker this is a good idea. So > >> wouldn't > >> a patch like this be a better solution to the problem ? > > > > Yes, I wasn't asking for the binutils change to be reverted. > > Oh right. Actually it looks like at least part of the patch is going to have > to be reverted, (the part that sorts the PT_LOAD segments into ascending > order), > as currently it breaks building Linux kernels. *sigh* If the kernel has been doing the wrong thing, we can accept the breakage. It's a matter for binutils policy in the end I suppose. > > > I don't think the > > boot wrapper is relying on this non-standard form. If we go with > > --no-dynamic-linker then I'm assuming we get a standard ELF binary? > > That seems desirable. > > Yes, you definitely should get a proper ELF binary. > > > I was just checking whether this is the best think for the kernel to do. > > Is it possible to get a similar behaviour using the linker script instead > > (so it's compatible with older binutils)? > > Actually probably not. :-( Several backends, including the PPC, will now > attempt to automatically create and install the PT_INTERP segment unless you > explicitly tell them not too. Even if you are using a custom linker script. Okay. It sounds like we should use --no-dynamic-linker whether or not your patch is changed. Thanks, Nick
