From af9eb2ee1b10caa89e1c603cd484bc025e71f4fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jan Beulich Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 08:15:53 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Arm64/ELF: accept relocations against STN_UNDEF While only a secondary issue there, the testcase of PR gas/27212 exposes an oversight in relocation handling: Just like e.g. Arm32, which has a similar comment and a similar check, relocations against STN_UNDEF have to be permitted to satisfy the ELF spec. --- bfd/elfnn-aarch64.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bfd/elfnn-aarch64.c b/bfd/elfnn-aarch64.c index c4db1e6f168..c23cbd3601a 100644 --- a/bfd/elfnn-aarch64.c +++ b/bfd/elfnn-aarch64.c @@ -6946,8 +6946,12 @@ elfNN_aarch64_relocate_section (bfd *output_bfd, /* An object file might have a reference to a local undefined symbol. This is a daft object file, but we - should at least do something about it. */ + should at least do something about it. NONE and NULL + relocations do not use the symbol and are explicitly + allowed to use an undefined one, so allow those. + Likewise for relocations against STN_UNDEF. */ if (r_type != R_AARCH64_NONE && r_type != R_AARCH64_NULL + && r_symndx != STN_UNDEF && bfd_is_und_section (sec) && ELF_ST_BIND (sym->st_info) != STB_WEAK) (*info->callbacks->undefined_symbol) -- 2.30.2