search for: pt_load

...t; > > >I think it might be time to revert commit 458a54133ecd ("Fix all > >warnings, and better separate code that should not be mixed") which > >broke master. Then apply at least the outstanding patch "Force the > >linker to put all sections into a single PT_LOAD segment" [2] from > >Debian which is required for EFI. And maybe tag the result as > >syslinux-6.04-pre4. > > > >[1] https://www.syslinux.org/archives/2019-February/026335.html > >[2] https://www.syslinux.org/archives/2018-August/026167.html > > > >Seb...

More recent versions of the GNU linker (>= 2.31) create a separate code "PT_LOAD" segment by default (as of https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=f6aec96dce1ddbd8961a3aa8a2925db2021719bb). Building syslinux EFI images with this -zseparate-code enabled creates broken EFI images, since efi/wrapper.c only copies the first PT_LOAD segment to the EFI. This p...

I wonder what is correct way to create PT_LOADs when linkerscript is used ? Currently we create new one for each section that changes access flags. But ld seems to do different thing. Imagine we have next sections: .section .AX.1,"ax" .quad 1 .section .A.1,"a" .quad 2 .section .AW.1,"aw" .quad 3 And script: SECTI...

...am with lld and the above error is generated. I narrowed it down to lld/Writer.cpp:getFileAlignment (). (Well, my local repository is from a while back (version 10) and for me it is lld/Writer.cpp:computeFileOffset ()) Either way, where it is calculating the file offset when two sections share same PT_LOAD, the formula used is off2 = off1 + (VA2 – VA1) but the subtraction is causing a negative number, causing out of bound value… Should this be abs(VA2 – VA1) ? Or Should it be cast to a signed integer so we subtract the difference rather than adding the large value? Thanks A. -------------- next par...

This patch updates x86_64 linker script to pack any .note.* sections into a PT_NOTE segment in the output file. To do this, we tell ld that we need a PT_NOTE segment. This requires us to start explicitly mapping sections to segments, so we also need to explicitly create PT_LOAD segments for text and data, and map the sections to them appropriately. Fortunately, each section will default to its previous section's segment, so it doesn't take many changes to vmlinux.lds.S. The corresponding change is already made for i386 in -mm and I'd like this patch to join...

...ogle.com> wrote: NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Alireza, getFileAlignment was renamed in Oct 2018. It seems that you may have sectionA and sectionB in one PT_LOAD while sectionB has a lower address. This is invalid. Can you provide more information about how you have a sectionB with a lower address? Note that LLD has an error "unable to move location counter backward for: ". On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 12:20 AM Moshtaghi, Alireza...

...t;> >> Joseph For ELF, * adding a non-SHF_ALLOC section is simple. A non-SHF_ALLOC section is not part of the memory image and not used by the program (unless for some rare introspection use cases) * adding a SHF_ALLOC section is difficult. You likely need to fix the containing PT_LOAD segment. llvm-objcopy only does the base p_offset fix. You need to take care p_vaddr/p_paddr/p_filesz/p_memsz by your self. + adding a section smaller than the known lowest address (ET_EXEC with a non-zero image base) or larger than the known largest address: The PT_LOAD fixes are...

>>That boot_params.hdr.code32_start field is probably either invalid (bad reloc or something else causing the bootloader to >>calculate the wrong address) or valid but the thing it thinks it is pointing to wasn't loaded (missing PT_LOAD etc.). >boot_params.hdr.code32_start field is valid :) It is 0x100000, like expected > >Then I suspect that that segment isn't being loaded. Is there a PT_LOAD that covers that address? Is the bootloader loading it? That issue is gone. Not sure what changed, but looks something was fi...

...gt; (u32)&boot_params + (ds() << 4)); >``` > >That boot_params.hdr.code32_start field is probably either invalid (bad reloc or something else causing the bootloader to >calculate the wrong address) or valid but the thing it thinks it is pointing to wasn't loaded (missing PT_LOAD etc.). boot_params.hdr.code32_start field is valid :) It is 0x100000, like expected (btw thanks for those links on info how kernel boots, they were pretty useful). I checked it is valid using trace: void go_to_protected_mode(void) { if (boot_params.hdr.code32_start == 0x100000) puts("go_to...

...This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > Hi Alireza, getFileAlignment was renamed in Oct 2018. It seems that > you may have sectionA and sectionB in one PT_LOAD while sectionB has a > lower address. This is invalid. > > Can you provide more information about how you have a sectionB with a > lower address? Note that LLD has an error "unable to move location > counter backward for: ". >...

...g (yet) and it lacks activity since March. I think it might be time to revert commit 458a54133ecd ("Fix all warnings, and better separate code that should not be mixed") which broke master. Then apply at least the outstanding patch "Force the linker to put all sections into a single PT_LOAD segment" [2] from Debian which is required for EFI. And maybe tag the result as syslinux-6.04-pre4. [1] https://www.syslinux.org/archives/2019-February/026335.html [2] https://www.syslinux.org/archives/2018-August/026167.html Sebastian

...attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alireza, getFileAlignment was renamed in Oct 2018. It seems that > > you may have sectionA and sectionB in one PT_LOAD while sectionB has a > > lower address. This is invalid. > > > > Can you provide more information about how you have a sectionB with a > > lower address? Note that LLD has an error "unable to move location > >...

...t;I think it might be time to revert commit 458a54133ecd ("Fix all > > >warnings, and better separate code that should not be mixed") which > > >broke master. Then apply at least the outstanding patch "Force the > > >linker to put all sections into a single PT_LOAD segment" [2] from > > >Debian which is required for EFI. And maybe tag the result as > > >syslinux-6.04-pre4. > > > > > >[1] https://www.syslinux.org/archives/2019-February/026335.html > > >[2] https://www.syslinux.org/archives/2018-August/026167.ht...

Hi Alireza, getFileAlignment was renamed in Oct 2018. It seems that you may have sectionA and sectionB in one PT_LOAD while sectionB has a lower address. This is invalid. Can you provide more information about how you have a sectionB with a lower address? Note that LLD has an error "unable to move location counter backward for: ". On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 12:20 AM Moshtaghi, Alireza via llvm-dev <llv...

...etApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > Hi Alireza, getFileAlignment was renamed in Oct 2018. It seems that > you may have sectionA and sectionB in one PT_LOAD while sectionB has a > lower address. This is invalid. > > Can you provide more information about how you have a sectionB with a > lower address? Note that LLD has an error "unable to move location > counter backward for: ". > > On Sun, Nov 15, 202...

When linking a project with lld, the android libc links to __executable_start which isn't defined when linking with lld (tried on x86), but is when linking with gnu ld it seems. I tried: .globl __executable_start __executable_start = __ehdr_start as a workaround but seems to be ignored. Anyone know a better workaround? Thanks, -- Carlo Kok RemObjects Software

Hi, On 2018-08-03 00:09, Ady Ady via Syslinux wrote: > I guess you are in Gentoo. > > Even if you are not using Debian, you could: > > 1_ Download the syslinux-related binary packages from the Debian > "experimental" (_not_ to be confused with "unstable") repository > (currently, "6.04~git20171011.af7e95c3+dfsg1-3") and take: > > * from

Hey, LLVM has logic to parse ELF and PE binaries using `llvm::object::createBinary`. I tried to search in the codebase to see if there's a possibility to add/remove sections after parsing a binary and re-write the binary to another location. Basically, like what llvm-objcopy does. Can you point me to the right classes to look into, if this is something that LLVM has? Many thanks Joseph

...l. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > Hi Alireza, getFileAlignment was renamed in Oct 2018. It seems that > you may have sectionA and sectionB in one PT_LOAD while sectionB has a > lower address. This is invalid. > > Can you provide more information about how you have a sectionB with a > lower address? Note that LLD has an error "unable to move location > counter backward for: &...

...ty in a .o. Thus ld generates the zeros that belong to that section in the .o. Then, when merging the section .bss16 into the .bss of syslinux.so, ld is forced to generate ALL the zeros that belong to the .bss section. Marking this section as NOLOAD make ld to ignore its content but still produce a PT_LOAD program header with the right memory size, as needed for the bss. efi/i386/syslinux.ld | 4 +- efi/wrapper.c | 138 +++++++++++++++---------------------------------- efi/x86_64/syslinux.ld | 4 +- 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 101 deletions(-) diff --git a/efi/i386/syslinux.l...