This is similar to commit

  b21ebf2f ("x86: Treat R_X86_64_PLT32 as R_X86_64_PC32")

but for i386. As far as the kernel is concerned, R_386_PLT32 can be
treated the same as R_386_PC32.

R_386_PLT32/R_X86_64_PLT32 are PC-relative relocation types which
can only be used by branches. If the referenced symbol is defined
externally, a PLT will be used.

R_386_PC32/R_X86_64_PC32 are PC-relative relocation types which can be
used by address taking operations and branches. If the referenced symbol
is defined externally, a copy relocation/canonical PLT entry will be
created in the executable.

On x86-64, there is no PIC vs non-PIC PLT distinction and an
R_X86_64_PLT32 relocation is produced for both `call/jmp foo` and
`call/jmp foo@PLT` with newer (2018) GNU as/LLVM integrated assembler.
This avoids canonical PLT entries (st_shndx=0, st_value!=0).

On i386, there are 2 types of PLTs, PIC and non-PIC. Currently,
the GCC/GNU as convention is to use R_386_PC32 for non-PIC PLT and
R_386_PLT32 for PIC PLT. Copy relocations/canonical PLT entries
are possible ABI issues but GCC/GNU as will likely keep the status
quo because (1) the ABI is legacy (2) the change will drop a GNU
ld diagnostic for non-default visibility ifunc in shared objects.

clang-12 -fno-pic (since [1]) can emit R_386_PLT32 for compiler
generated function declarations, because preventing canonical PLT
entries is weighed over the rare ifunc diagnostic.

Further info for the more interested:

  https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1210
  https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27169
  https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a084c0388e2a59b9556f2de0083333232da3f1d6 [1]

 [ bp: Massage commit message. ]
Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210127205600.1227437-1-maskray@google.com