On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 11:53:42AM -0600, Tom Saeger wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:51:45AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 01:18:40PM -0700, Tom Saeger wrote:
From: Masahiro Yamada masahiroy@kernel.org
commit 99cb0d917ffa1ab628bb67364ca9b162c07699b1 upstream.
Dennis Gilmore reports that the BuildID is missing in the arm64 vmlinux since commit 994b7ac1697b ("arm64: remove special treatment for the link order of head.o").
The issue is that the type of .notes section, which contains the BuildID, changed from NOTES to PROGBITS.
Ard Biesheuvel figured out that whichever object gets linked first gets to decide the type of a section. The PROGBITS type is the result of the compiler emitting .note.GNU-stack as PROGBITS rather than NOTE.
While Ard provided a fix for arm64, I want to fix this globally because the same issue is happening on riscv since commit 2348e6bf4421 ("riscv: remove special treatment for the link order of head.o"). This problem will happen in general for other architectures if they start to drop unneeded entries from scripts/head-object-list.txt.
Discard .note.GNU-stack in include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAABkxwuQoz1CTbyb57n0ZX65eSYiTonFCU8-LCQc=74D=x... Fixes: 994b7ac1697b ("arm64: remove special treatment for the link order of head.o") Fixes: 2348e6bf4421 ("riscv: remove special treatment for the link order of head.o")
Greg, how about something like this tacked onto backport of this commit?
[Tom: stable backport 5.15.y, 5.10.y, 5.4.y]
Though the above "Fixes:" commits are not in this kernel, the conditions which lead to a missing Build ID in arm64 vmlinux are similar.
Evidence points to these conditions: 1. ld version > 2.36 (exact binutils commit documented in a494398bde27) 2. first object which gets linked (head.o) has a PROGBITS .note.GNU-stack segment
These conditions can be observed when: - 5.15.60+ OR 5.10.136+ OR 5.4.210+ - AND ld version > 2.36 - AND arch=arm64 - AND CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y
This was previously bisected to the stable backport of 0d362be5b142. Follow-up experiments were discussed here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221221235413.xaisboqmr7dkqwn6@oracle.com/ which strongly hints at condition 2.
Why are we adding a commit to 5.15.y that fixes an issue that only showed up in 6.1.y?
If you approve - I'll send v3 for 5.15, 5.10, and 5.4 (with style fixes).
Cheers,
--Tom