Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: prevent regressions in compressed kernel image size when upgrading to binutils 2.27

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On 30 October 2017 at 13:08, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 09:33:41AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> Upon upgrading to binutils 2.27, we found that our lz4 and gzip
>> compressed kernel images were significantly larger, resulting is 10ms
>> boot time regressions.
>>
>> As noted by Rahul:
>> "aarch64 binaries uses RELA relocations, where each relocation entry
>> includes an addend value. This is similar to x86_64.  On x86_64, the
>> addend values are also stored at the relocation offset for relative
>> relocations. This is an optimization: in the case where code does not
>> need to be relocated, the loader can simply skip processing relative
>> relocations.  In binutils-2.25, both bfd and gold linkers did this for
>> x86_64, but only the gold linker did this for aarch64.  The kernel build
>> here is using the bfd linker, which stored zeroes at the relocation
>> offsets for relative relocations.  Since a set of zeroes compresses
>> better than a set of non-zero addend values, this behavior was resulting
>> in much better lz4 compression.
>>
>> The bfd linker in binutils-2.27 is now storing the actual addend values
>> at the relocation offsets. The behavior is now consistent with what it
>> does for x86_64 and what gold linker does for both architectures.  The
>> change happened in this upstream commit:
>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=1f56df9d0d5ad89806c24e71f296576d82344613
>> Since a bunch of zeroes got replaced by non-zero addend values, we see
>> the side effect of lz4 compressed image being a bit bigger.
>>
>> To get the old behavior from the bfd linker, "--no-apply-dynamic-relocs"
>> flag can be used:
>> $ LDFLAGS="--no-apply-dynamic-relocs" make
>> With this flag, the compressed image size is back to what it was with
>> binutils-2.25.
>>
>> If the kernel is using ASLR, there aren't additional runtime costs to
>> --no-apply-dynamic-relocs, as the relocations will need to be applied
>> again anyway after the kernel is relocated to a random address.
>>
>> If the kernel is not using ASLR, then presumably the current default
>> behavior of the linker is better. Since the static linker performed the
>> dynamic relocs, and the kernel is not moved to a different address at
>> load time, it can skip applying the relocations all over again."
>
> Do you have any numbers booting an uncompressed kernel Image without ASLR
> to see if skipping the relocs makes a measurable difference there?
>

Do you mean built with ASLR support but executing at the offset it was
linked at?