Re: [PATCH v2] vmlinux.lds.h: Keep .ctors.* with .ctors

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 09:53:39PM -0700, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 4:04 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > index 5430febd34be..b83c00c63997 100644
> > > --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> > > @@ -684,6 +684,7 @@
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS
> > >  #define KERNEL_CTORS()       . = ALIGN(8);                      \
> > >                       __ctors_start = .;                 \
> > > +                     KEEP(*(SORT(.ctors.*)))            \
> > >                       KEEP(*(.ctors))                    \
> > >                       KEEP(*(SORT(.init_array.*)))       \
> > >                       KEEP(*(.init_array))               \
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> 
> I think it would be great to figure out why these .ctors.* .dtors.* are generated.

I haven't had the time to investigate. This patch keeps sfr's builds
from regressing, so we need at least this first.

> ~GCC 4.7 switched to default to .init_array/.fini_array if libc
> supports it. I have some refactoring in this area of Clang as well
> (e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D71393)
> 
> And I am not sure SORT(.init_array.*) or SORT(.ctors.*) will work. The
> correct construct is SORT_BY_INIT_PRIORITY(.init_array.*)

The kernel doesn't seem to use the init_priority attribute at all. Are
you saying the cause of the .ctors.* names are a result of some internal
use of init_priority by the compiler here?

-- 
Kees Cook