On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:10:00AM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:24:33PM +0100, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > > > One idea I mentioned before, it may be worth exploring changing the "F" > > > in FGKASLR to "File" instead of "Function". In other words, only > > > shuffle at an object-file granularity. Then, even with duplicates, the > > > <file+function> symbol pair doesn't change in the symbol table. And as > > > a bonus, it should help FGKASLR i-cache performance, significantly. > > > > Yeah, I keep that in mind. However, this wouldn't solve the > > duplicate static function names problem, right? > > Let's say you have a static function f() in file1 and f() in file2, > > then the layout each boot can be > > > > .text.file1 or .text.file2 > > f() f() > > .text.file2 .text.file1 > > f() f() > > > > and position-based search won't work anyway, right? > > Right, so we'd have to abandon position-based search in favor of > file+func based search. > > It's not perfect because there are still a few file+func duplicates. > But it might be good enough. We would presumably just refuse to patch a > duplicate. Or we could remove them (and enforce their continued removal > with tooling-based warnings). > You're talking about duplicate file+func combinations as stored in the symbol table?
