Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:45:06 -0600 | From | Josh Poimboeuf <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] elf: add livepatch-specific elf constants |
| |
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:45:51PM -0500, Jessica Yu wrote: > Add livepatch elf reloc section flag, livepatch symbol bind > and section index > > Signed-off-by: Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com> > --- > include/uapi/linux/elf.h | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/elf.h b/include/uapi/linux/elf.h > index 71e1d0e..967ce1b 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/elf.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/elf.h > @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ typedef __s64 Elf64_Sxword; > #define STB_LOCAL 0 > #define STB_GLOBAL 1 > #define STB_WEAK 2 > +#define STB_LIVEPATCH_EXT 11 > > #define STT_NOTYPE 0 > #define STT_OBJECT 1 > @@ -286,6 +287,7 @@ typedef struct elf64_phdr { > #define SHF_ALLOC 0x2 > #define SHF_EXECINSTR 0x4 > #define SHF_MASKPROC 0xf0000000 > +#define SHF_RELA_LIVEPATCH 0x4000000
Writing the value with leading zeros (0x04000000) would it more readable.
Also the OS-specific range mask (SHF_MASKOS) is 0x0ff00000. Any reason you went with 0x04000000 as opposed to the first value in the range (0x00100000)? I don't see anybody else using that value.
> /* special section indexes */ > #define SHN_UNDEF 0 > @@ -295,6 +297,7 @@ typedef struct elf64_phdr { > #define SHN_ABS 0xfff1 > #define SHN_COMMON 0xfff2 > #define SHN_HIRESERVE 0xffff > +#define SHN_LIVEPATCH 0xff21
Similar question here, why not use 0xff20 (SHN_LOOS)?
-- Josh
| |