lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: elf: add livepatch-specific elf constants
+++ Josh Poimboeuf [12/11/15 09:45 -0600]:
>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.

I don't have any particular reason, I think I just picked any value
and ran with it. I'll just change it to the first value in the range
since that makes more sense.

>> /* 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-13 08:01    [W:0.125 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site