[PATCH] ARM: force linker to use PIC veneers

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On 24 March 2015 at 16:16, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre at linaro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
>> On 24 March 2015 at 13:22, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin at arm.com> wrote:
>> > How many such veneers get added in the your kernel configuration, and
>> > how many are actually necessary (i.e., calls between MMU-off code and
>> > elsewhere)?
>> >
>>
>> Very few. In addition to the example (which will be addressed in
>> another way regardless) there are some resume functions that get
>> allocated in .data, and those would need it as well.
>
>
> What are they? I thought we removed all instances of those already.
>
>> I have also proposed b_far/bl_far macros that could be used there as
>> well.
>
> Could the automatic veneer insertion replace the unconditional
> b_far/bl_far usage?  The former would be preferable to the later.
>

Agreed. I am not entirely sure why those functions don't get a veneer.
Perhaps simply because .data is not annotated as executable?

Frankly, I don't really understand the purpose of putting those in
.data in the first place. but if they need to remain there, I can try
to figure out how to get the linker to emit veneers for those as well.