From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@sourceware.org>
Subject: [PATCH] csu: Disable stack protector for static-reloc for static-pie
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2022 14:07:28 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221005170728.2350140-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> (raw)
For instance on x86_64 with gcc 12.1.1 andwith fstack-protector
enabled the empty function still generates a stack protector code
sequence:
0000000000000000 <_dl_relocate_static_pie>:
0: 48 83 ec 18 sub $0x18,%rsp
4: 64 48 8b 04 25 28 00 mov %fs:0x28,%rax
b: 00 00
d: 48 89 44 24 08 mov %rax,0x8(%rsp)
12: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
14: 48 8b 44 24 08 mov 0x8(%rsp),%rax
19: 64 48 2b 04 25 28 00 sub %fs:0x28,%rax
20: 00 00
22: 75 05 jne 29 <_dl_relocate_static_pie+0x29>
24: 48 83 c4 18 add $0x18,%rsp
28: c3 ret
29: e8 00 00 00 00 call 2e <_dl_relocate_static_pie+0x2e>
And since the function is called prior thread pointer setup, it
triggers a invalid memory access (this is shown with the failure
of elf/tst-tls1-static-non-pie).
Although it might characterizes as compiler issue or missed
optimization, to be safe also disables stack protector on
static-reloc object.
Checked on x86_64-linux-gnu and sparc64-linux-gnu.
---
csu/Makefile | 16 +++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/csu/Makefile b/csu/Makefile
index 2e8a28e851..f71a5eb6c6 100644
--- a/csu/Makefile
+++ b/csu/Makefile
@@ -50,15 +50,21 @@ tests =
# applications, so that build flags matter.
# See <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-07/msg00101.html>.
#
+# The function is called prior the thread pointer setup, and if stack
+# protector is enabled the compiler might still generate the stack check
+# (which requires the thread pointer correctly set).
+extra-no-ssp = static-reloc
+
# libc-start.os is safe to be built with stack protector since
# __libc_start_main is called after stack canary setup is done.
-ssp-safe.os = static-reloc libc-start
+ssp-safe.os = libc-start
-CFLAGS-.o += $(call elide-stack-protector,.o,$(routines))
-CFLAGS-.op += $(call elide-stack-protector,.op,$(routines))
-CFLAGS-.oS += $(call elide-stack-protector,.oS,$(routines))
+CFLAGS-.o += $(call elide-stack-protector,.o,$(routines) $(extra-no-ssp))
+CFLAGS-.op += $(call elide-stack-protector,.op,$(routines) $(extra-no-ssp))
+CFLAGS-.oS += $(call elide-stack-protector,.oS,$(routines) $(extra-no-ssp))
CFLAGS-.os += $(call elide-stack-protector,.os,$(filter-out \
- $(ssp-safe.os),$(routines)))
+ $(ssp-safe.os), \
+ $(routines) $(extra-no-ssp)))
ifeq (yes,$(build-shared))
extra-objs += S$(start-installed-name) gmon-start.os
--
2.34.1
next reply other threads:[~2022-10-05 17:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-05 17:07 Adhemerval Zanella [this message]
2022-10-05 18:23 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
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=20221005170728.2350140-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--to=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=siddhesh@sourceware.org \
/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).