From: pjones@redhat.com (Peter Jones) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH 5/7] arm64: efi: remove pointless dummy .reloc section Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 13:30:57 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170207183056.42gqqg2jp32jexmy@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1486398275-3966-6-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 04:24:33PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > The kernel's EFI PE/COFF header contains a dummy .reloc section, and > an explanatory comment that claims that this is required for the EFI > application loader to accept the Image as a relocatable image (i.e., > one that can be loaded at any offset and fixed up in place) > > This was inherited from the x86 implementation, which has elaborate host > tooling to mangle the PE/COFF header post-link time, and which populates > the .reloc section with a single dummy base relocation. On ARM, no such > tooling exists, and the .reloc section remains empty, and is never even > exposed via the BaseRelocationTable directory entry, which is where the > PE/COFF loader looks for it. > > The PE/COFF spec is unclear about relocatable images that do not require > any fixups, but the EDK2 implementation, which is the de facto reference > for PE/COFF in the UEFI space, clearly does not care, and explicitly > mentions (in a comment) that relocatable images with no base relocations > are perfectly fine, as long as they don't have the RELOCS_STRIPPED > attribute set (which is not the case for our PE/COFF image) > > So simply remove the .reloc section altogether. > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Looks completely reasonable to me. Acked-by: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com> > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/efi-header.S | 22 +------------------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 21 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-header.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-header.S > index 74a25c09a1b8..35b11654ecc5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-header.S > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-header.S > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ pe_header: > .short 0 > coff_header: > .short 0xaa64 // AArch64 > - .short 2 // nr_sections > + .short 1 // nr_sections > .long 0 // TimeDateStamp > .long 0 // PointerToSymbolTable > .long 1 // NumberOfSymbols > @@ -96,26 +96,6 @@ extra_header_fields: > > // Section table > section_table: > - > - /* > - * The EFI application loader requires a relocation section > - * because EFI applications must be relocatable. This is a > - * dummy section as far as we are concerned. > - */ > - .ascii ".reloc" > - .byte 0 > - .byte 0 // end of 0 padding of section name > - .long 0 > - .long 0 > - .long 0 // SizeOfRawData > - .long 0 // PointerToRawData > - .long 0 // PointerToRelocations > - .long 0 // PointerToLineNumbers > - .short 0 // NumberOfRelocations > - .short 0 // NumberOfLineNumbers > - .long 0x42100040 // Characteristics (section flags) > - > - > .ascii ".text" > .byte 0 > .byte 0 > -- > 2.7.4 > -- Peter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com> To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, labbott@fedoraproject.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, leif.lindholm@linaro.org Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 5/7] arm64: efi: remove pointless dummy .reloc section Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 13:30:57 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170207183056.42gqqg2jp32jexmy@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1486398275-3966-6-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 04:24:33PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > The kernel's EFI PE/COFF header contains a dummy .reloc section, and > an explanatory comment that claims that this is required for the EFI > application loader to accept the Image as a relocatable image (i.e., > one that can be loaded at any offset and fixed up in place) > > This was inherited from the x86 implementation, which has elaborate host > tooling to mangle the PE/COFF header post-link time, and which populates > the .reloc section with a single dummy base relocation. On ARM, no such > tooling exists, and the .reloc section remains empty, and is never even > exposed via the BaseRelocationTable directory entry, which is where the > PE/COFF loader looks for it. > > The PE/COFF spec is unclear about relocatable images that do not require > any fixups, but the EDK2 implementation, which is the de facto reference > for PE/COFF in the UEFI space, clearly does not care, and explicitly > mentions (in a comment) that relocatable images with no base relocations > are perfectly fine, as long as they don't have the RELOCS_STRIPPED > attribute set (which is not the case for our PE/COFF image) > > So simply remove the .reloc section altogether. > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Looks completely reasonable to me. Acked-by: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com> > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/efi-header.S | 22 +------------------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 21 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-header.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-header.S > index 74a25c09a1b8..35b11654ecc5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-header.S > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-header.S > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ pe_header: > .short 0 > coff_header: > .short 0xaa64 // AArch64 > - .short 2 // nr_sections > + .short 1 // nr_sections > .long 0 // TimeDateStamp > .long 0 // PointerToSymbolTable > .long 1 // NumberOfSymbols > @@ -96,26 +96,6 @@ extra_header_fields: > > // Section table > section_table: > - > - /* > - * The EFI application loader requires a relocation section > - * because EFI applications must be relocatable. This is a > - * dummy section as far as we are concerned. > - */ > - .ascii ".reloc" > - .byte 0 > - .byte 0 // end of 0 padding of section name > - .long 0 > - .long 0 > - .long 0 // SizeOfRawData > - .long 0 // PointerToRawData > - .long 0 // PointerToRelocations > - .long 0 // PointerToLineNumbers > - .short 0 // NumberOfRelocations > - .short 0 // NumberOfLineNumbers > - .long 0x42100040 // Characteristics (section flags) > - > - > .ascii ".text" > .byte 0 > .byte 0 > -- > 2.7.4 > -- Peter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-07 18:30 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-02-06 16:24 [PATCH 0/7] arm64: efi: PE/COFF cleanup/hardening Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [PATCH 1/7] include: pe.h: allow for use in assembly Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:33 ` Mark Rutland 2017-02-06 16:33 ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland 2017-02-06 16:40 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:40 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [PATCH 2/7] include: pe.h: add some missing definitions Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [PATCH 3/7] arm64: efi: move EFI header and related data to a separate .S file Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 17:03 ` Mark Rutland 2017-02-06 17:03 ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland 2017-02-06 17:07 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 17:07 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [PATCH 4/7] arm64: efi: ensure that the PE/COFF header pointer appears at offset 0x3c Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 17:05 ` Mark Rutland 2017-02-06 17:05 ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [PATCH 5/7] arm64: efi: remove pointless dummy .reloc section Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 17:06 ` Mark Rutland 2017-02-06 17:06 ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland 2017-02-07 18:30 ` Peter Jones [this message] 2017-02-07 18:30 ` Peter Jones 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [PATCH 6/7] arm64: efi: replace open coded constants with symbolic ones Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 17:13 ` Mark Rutland 2017-02-06 17:13 ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [PATCH 7/7] arm64: efi: split Image code and data into separate PE/COFF sections Ard Biesheuvel 2017-02-06 16:24 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ard Biesheuvel
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20170207183056.42gqqg2jp32jexmy@redhat.com \ --to=pjones@redhat.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.