On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 01:37:26PM -0600, Sam Edwards wrote: > Hi Ilias, > > On 5/22/23 00:52, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > I can help clean up the arm architecture even further. I was toying > > with the idea of having page-aligned sections and eventually map > > u-boot with proper permissions per section. Right now (at least for > > the majority of arm platforms) we are doing RWX for all the memory, > > apart from devices that are mapped as RW. I do have an awfully hacky > > PoC around, but the linker script cleanup is more than welcome. > > Glad to hear it (and excited by the idea of proper W^X)!
Yes that's my end goal here. Looking around the code we have in U-Boot regarding the mmu configuration, it's a lot easier (and cleaner) to fix the linker script, add symbols for ro_start, rw_start etc and layout the binary in a way we can easily map it, instead of leaving it as is and try to fix the mapping in c code. > The linker script > cleanup (i.e. deleting those pesky `sections.c` files and going back to > linker-assigned symbols) can really happen whenever; it won't cause a > problem on any version of GNU ld from <7 years ago. Perhaps a series of > patches (one per arch) doing that should be landed first? Yes probably, because I specifically remember digging through the history of why the sections were defined like that in the first place. > > > It's probably not a mailing list issue. I only got the efi related > > patches on my mailbox. The recipients were generated with > > get_maintainers.pl? Heinirch and I only received the efi* portions as > > we maintain that subsystem > > Well, it's true that you and Heinrich weren't Cc: on every email in the > series. I just went with patman's default behavior. > > But every patch was sent To: the u-boot list, and I do see the whole series > showing up on the archive. Did you not even receive the other patches in the > series via the list? > > Cheers, > Sam Cheers /Ilias
