Some super-naive questions, which are supposed to educate me, and not to
question the series:

On 06/12/18 17:22, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> The GCC toolchain uses PIE mode when building code for X64, because it
> is the most efficient in size: it uses relative references where
> possible, but still uses 64-bit quantities for absolute symbol
> references,

Absolute symbol references such as? References to fixed (constant)
addresses?

> which is optimal for executables that need to be converted
> to PE/COFF using GenFw.

Why is that approach optimal? As few relocations records are required as
possible?

> Enabling PIE mode has a couple of side effects though, primarily caused
> by the fact that the primary application area of GCC is to build programs
> for userland. GCC will assume that ELF symbols should be preemptible (which
> makes sense for PIC but not for PIE,

Why don't preemptible symbols make sense for PIE?

For example, if a userspace program loads a plugin with dlopen(), and
the plugin (.so) uses helper functions from the main executable, then
the main executable has to be (well, had to be, earlier?) built with
"-rdynamic". Wouldn't this mean the main executable could both be PIE
and sensibly have preemptible symbols?

(My apologies if I'm disturbingly ignorant about this and the question
doesn't even make sense.)

> but this simply seems to be the result
> of code being shared between the two modes), and it will attempt to keep
> absolute references close to each other so that dynamic relocations that
> trigger CoW for text pages have the smallest possible footprint.

So... Given this behavior, why is it a problem for us? What are the bad
symptoms? What is currently broken?

Sorry about my naivety here.

Thanks,
Laszlo

> These side effects can be mititgated by overriding the visibility of all
> symbol definitions *and* symbol references, using a special #pragma. This
> will inform the compiler that symbol preemption and dynamic relocations
> are not a concern, and that all symbol references can be emitted as direct
> relative references rather than relative references to a GOT entry containing
> the absolute address. Unsurprisingly, this leads to better and smaller code.
> 
> Unfortunately, we have not been able to set this override when LTO is in
> effect, because the LTO code generator infers from the hidden visibility
> of all symbols that none of the code is reachable, and discards it all,
> leading to corrupt, empty binaries.
> 
> We can work around this by overriding the visibility for symbols that are
> module entry points. So implement this for all occcurrences of the symbol
> '_ModuleEntryPoint', and enable 'hidden' visibility in LTO builds as well.
> 
> Note that all the changes in this series resolve to no-ops if USING_LTO
> is not #defined.
> 
> Code can be found here:
> https://github.com/ardbiesheuvel/edk2/tree/x64-lto-visibility
> 
> Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>
> Cc: Liming Gao <liming....@intel.com>
> Cc: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu...@intel.com>
> Cc: Hao Wu <hao.a...@intel.com>
> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>
> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>
> Cc: Andrew Fish <af...@apple.com>
> Cc: Star Zeng <star.z...@intel.com>
> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.d...@intel.com>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Zenith432 <zenith...@users.sourceforge.net>
> Cc: "Shi, Steven" <steven....@intel.com>
> 
> Ard Biesheuvel (11):
>   MdePkg/ProcessorBind.h: define macro to decorate module entry points
>   DuetPkg: annotate module entry points with EFI_ENTRYPOINT
>   EdkCompatibilityPkg: annotate module entry points with EFI_ENTRYPOINT
>   EmbeddedPkg: annotate module entry points with EFI_ENTRYPOINT
>   EmulatorPkg: annotate module entry points with EFI_ENTRYPOINT
>   IntelFrameWorkPkg: annotate module entry points with EFI_ENTRYPOINT
>   MdeModulePkg: annotate module entry points with EFI_ENTRYPOINT
>   MdePkg: annotate module entry points with EFI_ENTRYPOINT
>   Nt32Pkg: annotate module entry points with EFI_ENTRYPOINT
>   UefiCpuPkg: annotate module entry points with EFI_ENTRYPOINT
>   MdePkg/ProcessorBind.h X64: drop non-LTO limitation on visiblity
>     override
> 
>  DuetPkg/DxeIpl/DxeInit.c                         |  1 +
>  DuetPkg/EfiLdr/EfiLoader.c                       |  1 +
>  .../EntryPoints/EdkIIGlueDxeDriverEntryPoint.c   |  1 +
>  .../EntryPoints/EdkIIGluePeimEntryPoint.c        |  1 +
>  .../EntryPoints/EdkIIGlueSmmDriverEntryPoint.c   |  1 +
>  .../Library/EdkIIGlueDxeSmmDriverEntryPoint.h    |  1 +
>  .../Include/Library/EdkIIGluePeimEntryPoint.h    |  1 +
>  .../Library/EdkIIGlueUefiDriverEntryPoint.h      |  1 +
>  EmbeddedPkg/TemplateSec/TemplateSec.c            |  1 +
>  EmulatorPkg/Sec/Sec.c                            |  1 +
>  .../DxeSmmDriverEntryPoint/DriverEntryPoint.c    |  1 +
>  MdeModulePkg/Universal/CapsulePei/X64/X64Entry.c |  1 +
>  MdePkg/Include/Base.h                            |  7 +++++++
>  MdePkg/Include/Library/DxeCoreEntryPoint.h       |  1 +
>  MdePkg/Include/Library/PeiCoreEntryPoint.h       |  1 +
>  MdePkg/Include/Library/PeimEntryPoint.h          |  1 +
>  .../Include/Library/UefiApplicationEntryPoint.h  |  1 +
>  MdePkg/Include/Library/UefiDriverEntryPoint.h    |  1 +
>  MdePkg/Include/X64/ProcessorBind.h               | 16 +++++++++++-----
>  .../DxeCoreEntryPoint/DxeCoreEntryPoint.c        |  1 +
>  .../PeiCoreEntryPoint/PeiCoreEntryPoint.c        |  1 +
>  MdePkg/Library/PeimEntryPoint/PeimEntryPoint.c   |  1 +
>  .../ApplicationEntryPoint.c                      |  1 +
>  .../UefiDriverEntryPoint/DriverEntryPoint.c      |  1 +
>  Nt32Pkg/Sec/SecMain.c                            |  1 +
>  .../PlatformSecLibNull/PlatformSecLibNull.c      |  1 +
>  26 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 

_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Reply via email to