[PATCH] powerpc/boot: request no dynamic linker for boot wrapper

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:25:31 +0000
Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Nicholas,
> 
> >> ... this actually seems like a better fix to me.  If you do not want the 
> >> PT_INTERP segment, then telling this linker this is a good idea.  So wouldn't
> >> a patch like this be a better solution to the problem ?  
> > 
> > Yes, I wasn't asking for the binutils change to be reverted.  
> 
> Oh right.  Actually it looks like at least part of the patch is going to have
> to be reverted, (the part that sorts the PT_LOAD segments into ascending order), 
> as currently it breaks building Linux  kernels.  *sigh*

If the kernel has been doing the wrong thing, we can accept the breakage.
It's a matter for binutils policy in the end I suppose.

> 
> > I don't think the
> > boot wrapper is relying on this non-standard form. If we go with
> > --no-dynamic-linker then I'm assuming we get a standard ELF binary?
> > That seems desirable.  
> 
> Yes, you definitely should get a proper ELF binary.
> 
> > I was just checking whether this is the best think for the kernel to do.
> > Is it possible to get a similar behaviour using the linker script instead
> > (so it's compatible with older binutils)?  
> 
> Actually probably not.  :-(  Several backends, including the PPC, will now 
> attempt to automatically create and install the PT_INTERP segment unless you
> explicitly tell them not too.  Even if you are using a custom linker script.

Okay. It sounds like we should use --no-dynamic-linker whether or not your
patch is changed.

Thanks,
Nick