Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 13 Nov 2015 01:49:51 -0500 | From | Jessica Yu <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |