From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] elf: Allow architectures to parse properties on the main executable
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 16:16:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210609151622.GK4187@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210604112450.13344-2-broonie@kernel.org>
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:24:48PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Currently the ELF code only attempts to parse properties on the image
> that will start execution, either the interpreter or for statically linked
> executables the main executable. The expectation is that any property
> handling for the main executable will be done by the interpreter. This is
> a bit inconsistent since we do map the executable and is causing problems
> for the arm64 BTI support when used in conjunction with systemd's use of
> seccomp to implement MemoryDenyWriteExecute which stops the dynamic linker
> adjusting the permissions of executable segments.
>
> Allow architectures to handle properties for both the dynamic linker and
> main executable, adjusting arch_parse_elf_properties() to have an is_interp
> flag as with arch_elf_adjust_prot() and calling it for both the main
> executable and any intepreter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
I haven't got my head around whether we must move some of the arm64
logic from arch_elf_adjust_proc() to arch_parse_elf_properties(), but
either way, it would make sense to explain the direction of travel here.
(This may just be me failing to keep track of what's changing -- the
affected logic is retained for bisectability here and then dropped later
on in the series...)
It's a little annoying that we add has_interp all over the place only to
remove it again later, but I guess that may be the simplest way to keep
things bisectable while moving logic around. If so, I don't have a
strong opinion on it.
[...]
> diff --git a/fs/binfmt_elf.c b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> index 187b3f2b9202..253ca9969345 100644
> --- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> @@ -716,8 +716,9 @@ static unsigned long load_elf_interp(struct elfhdr *interp_elf_ex,
> */
>
> static int parse_elf_property(const char *data, size_t *off, size_t datasz,
> - struct arch_elf_state *arch,
> - bool have_prev_type, u32 *prev_type)
> + struct arch_elf_state *arch, bool has_interp,
> + bool is_interp, bool have_prev_type,
> + u32 *prev_type)
> {
> size_t o, step;
> const struct gnu_property *pr;
> @@ -751,7 +752,8 @@ static int parse_elf_property(const char *data, size_t *off, size_t datasz,
> *prev_type = pr->pr_type;
>
> ret = arch_parse_elf_property(pr->pr_type, data + o,
> - pr->pr_datasz, ELF_COMPAT, arch);
> + pr->pr_datasz, ELF_COMPAT,
> + has_interp, is_interp, arch);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> @@ -764,6 +766,7 @@ static int parse_elf_property(const char *data, size_t *off, size_t datasz,
> #define NOTE_NAME_SZ (sizeof(GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0_NAME))
>
> static int parse_elf_properties(struct file *f, const struct elf_phdr *phdr,
> + bool has_interp, bool is_interp,
> struct arch_elf_state *arch)
> {
> union {
> @@ -813,7 +816,8 @@ static int parse_elf_properties(struct file *f, const struct elf_phdr *phdr,
> have_prev_type = false;
> do {
> ret = parse_elf_property(note.data, &off, datasz, arch,
> - have_prev_type, &prev_type);
> + has_interp, is_interp, have_prev_type,
> + &prev_type);
> have_prev_type = true;
> } while (!ret);
>
> @@ -828,6 +832,7 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> unsigned long error;
> struct elf_phdr *elf_ppnt, *elf_phdata, *interp_elf_phdata = NULL;
> struct elf_phdr *elf_property_phdata = NULL;
> + struct elf_phdr *interp_elf_property_phdata = NULL;
> unsigned long elf_bss, elf_brk;
> int bss_prot = 0;
> int retval, i;
> @@ -963,12 +968,11 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> goto out_free_dentry;
>
> /* Pass PT_LOPROC..PT_HIPROC headers to arch code */
> - elf_property_phdata = NULL;
> elf_ppnt = interp_elf_phdata;
> for (i = 0; i < interp_elf_ex->e_phnum; i++, elf_ppnt++)
> switch (elf_ppnt->p_type) {
> case PT_GNU_PROPERTY:
> - elf_property_phdata = elf_ppnt;
> + interp_elf_property_phdata = elf_ppnt;
> break;
>
> case PT_LOPROC ... PT_HIPROC:
> @@ -979,10 +983,17 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> goto out_free_dentry;
> break;
> }
> +
> + retval = parse_elf_properties(interpreter,
> + interp_elf_property_phdata,
> + true, true, &arch_state);
> + if (retval)
> + goto out_free_dentry;
> +
> }
>
> - retval = parse_elf_properties(interpreter ?: bprm->file,
> - elf_property_phdata, &arch_state);
> + retval = parse_elf_properties(bprm->file, elf_property_phdata,
> + interpreter, false, &arch_state);
Nit: interpreter != NULL?
(I guess it works as-is, but from the way this is written it looks a
little like we intend parse_elf_properties() to examine / modify
*interpreter, which is not the case.
> if (retval)
> goto out_free_dentry;
>
[...]
Cheers
---Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-09 15:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-04 11:24 [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: Enable BTI for the executable as well as the interpreter Mark Brown
2021-06-04 11:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] elf: Allow architectures to parse properties on the main executable Mark Brown
2021-06-09 15:16 ` Dave Martin [this message]
2021-06-10 13:41 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-04 11:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: Enable BTI for main executable as well as the interpreter Mark Brown
2021-06-09 15:17 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 13:19 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-10 15:34 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-04 11:24 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] elf: Remove has_interp property from arch_adjust_elf_prot() Mark Brown
2021-06-09 15:17 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-09 16:55 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2021-06-10 9:58 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 18:17 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2021-06-10 13:34 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-10 15:40 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 16:28 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: Enable BTI for the executable as well as the interpreter Jeremy Linton
2021-06-14 16:00 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-15 15:22 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-15 15:33 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-15 15:41 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-16 5:12 ` Jeremy Linton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210609151622.GK4187@arm.com \
--to=dave.martin@arm.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yu-cheng.yu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).