public inbox for devel@edk2.groups.io
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>, edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>,
	Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>, Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>,
	Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>,
	Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>,
	Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>, Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>,
	Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>,
	Zenith432 <zenith432@users.sourceforge.net>,
	"Shi, Steven" <steven.shi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] GCC/X64: use hidden visibility for LTO PIE code
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:33:45 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7be25843-d115-2738-0970-93f05a172aff@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180612152306.25998-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>

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.kinney@intel.com>
> Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
> Cc: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> Cc: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>
> Cc: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>
> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> Cc: Zenith432 <zenith432@users.sourceforge.net>
> Cc: "Shi, Steven" <steven.shi@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(-)
> 



  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-06-12 18:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-12 15:22 [RFC PATCH 00/11] GCC/X64: use hidden visibility for LTO PIE code Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-12 15:22 ` [RFC PATCH 01/11] MdePkg/ProcessorBind.h: define macro to decorate module entry points Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-12 15:22 ` [RFC PATCH 02/11] DuetPkg: annotate module entry points with EFI_ENTRYPOINT Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-12 15:22 ` [RFC PATCH 03/11] EdkCompatibilityPkg: " Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-12 15:22 ` [RFC PATCH 04/11] EmbeddedPkg: " Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-12 15:23 ` [RFC PATCH 05/11] EmulatorPkg: " Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-12 15:23 ` [RFC PATCH 06/11] IntelFrameWorkPkg: " Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-12 15:23 ` [RFC PATCH 07/11] MdeModulePkg: " Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-12 15:23 ` [RFC PATCH 08/11] MdePkg: " Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-12 15:23 ` [RFC PATCH 09/11] Nt32Pkg: " Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-12 15:23 ` [RFC PATCH 10/11] UefiCpuPkg: " Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-12 15:23 ` [RFC PATCH 11/11] MdePkg/ProcessorBind.h X64: drop non-LTO limitation on visiblity override Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-12 18:33 ` Laszlo Ersek [this message]
2018-06-12 18:58   ` [RFC PATCH 00/11] GCC/X64: use hidden visibility for LTO PIE code Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-13  2:08 ` Shi, Steven
     [not found] <1142041495.4269416.1528831046054.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
2018-06-12 19:17 ` Zenith432
     [not found] <1971023844.4599916.1528877047633.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
2018-06-13  8:04 ` Zenith432

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-list 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=7be25843-d115-2738-0970-93f05a172aff@redhat.com \
    --to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
    /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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox