Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: Discard .interp sections

[Nam Le <lehoangnamtep@gmail.com>]

On 08/04/2026 13:49, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 01:01:24PM +0100, Nam Le wrote:
> 
>> Link: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/78873#issuecomment-1902794108
> 
> From that page:
> 
> "I guess the only choice is patching the kernel then."
> 
> People better delete this thinking from their heads! The kernel doesn't mop up
> for everyone else's silliness.
> 
>> Normally I would never add this flag, but some package manager (specifically
>> Nix) adds --dynamic-linker as a default when building any applications.
>> Ideally this should be a fix on LLVM's side of things since its a pretty
>> significant difference in behavior between ld.lld and ld.bfd, but for the
>> meantime I believe this is a minimal enough change to fix the issue.
> 
> I'd like for your commit message to explain why *exactly* your patch exists.
> I.e., the Nix use case.
> 
>> Thank you for the advice! Should I add a comment and submit a v2 patch for
>> the change?
> 
> Michael's suggestion of using --no-dynamic-linker makes more sense to me. We
> usually protect ourselves this way from the toolchain - by turning off flags
> explicitly.
> 
> Thx.
> 

I am hesitant on modifying the Makefile to add the --no-dynamic-linker
flag since a previous kernel patch proposed this exact change but was
rejected a while back:

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/CAFP8O3Kqx-gdTBFn_hesWzd-6NCpGEz1=fMoJXuX+n4c7sp0Bw@mail.gmail.com/

Should I still go for the --no-dynamic-linker change regardless? Seems like
progress on this issue has stalled on all ends (Nix, LLVM, and the
kernel) ever since 2024, and I just happened to stumble on it again
recently. I'd be happy to amend the commit message to 
include more context on the Nix use case.