public inbox for libc-alpha@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
To: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>,
	Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
	Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] elf/dl-deps.c: Make _dl_build_local_scope breadth first
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 17:12:34 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3d6799fe-2b9d-4780-254d-dbd0799483ae@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <62d5866a-ea76-a56a-7063-dada34b3fe66@kernel.crashing.org>



On 12/01/2022 16:08, Mark Hatle wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/11/22 1:26 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/12/2021 20:53, Khem Raj via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>> From: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
>>>
>>> According to the ELF specification:
>>>
>>> When resolving symbolic references, the dynamic linker examines the symbol
>>> tables with a breadth-first search.
>>>
>>> This function was using a depth first search.  By doing so the conflict
>>> resolution reported to the prelinker (when LD_TRACE_PRELINKING=1 is set)
>>> was incorrect.  This caused problems when their were various circular
>>> dependencies between libraries.  The problem usually manifested itself by
>>> the wrong IFUNC being executed.
>>>
>>> Similar issue has been reported here [1]
>>>
>>> [BZ# 20488]
>>>
>>> [1] https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/libc-alpha/2016-05/msg00034.html
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@kernel.crashing.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
>>
>> I am trying to understand why it this only an issue for LD_TRACE_PRELINKING=1,
>> do we have a testcase that stress it for a default usercase?
> 
> The underlying issue here is that resolution is happening depth first and not breadth first.  According to the ELF spec, all resolution should be breadth-first.
> 
> 
> As noted in item in above, the prelinker just happens to be a way to actually show that the behavior is incorrect.  (There even appears to be a related defect with a reproducer.)
> 
> 
> When taking the values from LD_TRACE_PRELINKING=1, various addresses and conflict resolutions are specified.  When you compare what is reported, vs what happens, vs what the spec says they don't align as they should.

That was pretty clear from bug report, what I am trying to understand is 
why it seems to not being reported before in default non-prelinked usage.

Also, the patch only changes the semantic to prelinked binaries which is
at least troublesome: this semantic difference at symbol resolution is
a potential source of issues where user see different behavior depending
whether prelinked was used or not. 

I am also worried because making such change might potentially trigger
some hard to diagnostic breakage.

> 
> 
>> When you say the 'wrong IFUNC being executed' what exactly you mean here?
>> Could we use a testcase based on this?
> 
> 
> The prelinker (and possibly just in general), the IFUNC address used is the one from the wrong library scope.  I personally have never tried to reproduce this outside of the prelinking use-case, but based on the referenced report and the code at the time of the change, it is believed this could happen (but rarely) without a prelinked system in a very complex case with multiple libraries providing the same functions.
> 
> The main issue (my memory is sketchy sorry this might be wrong) is that if one or more functions is an IFUNC and one or more functions is NOT, then the you can get into a situation with a conflict of the wrong function being called using the wrong mechanism.
> 
> Definitely in the prelink case, the resolver gave the address of a regular function which was then placed into an IFUNC (or maybe it was the other way around) triggering the runtime segfault.

I asked about ifunc because it should not really be dependent where ifunc
is used or not, what might be happening is this issue triggers the long
standing ifunc ordering issue more often.

To summarize, although this change only affects prelinked binaries I think
it would be better to change for default semantic as well.  We can make
it a tunable for the transition, like new DSO sorting algorithm with
glibc.rtld.dynamic_sort, and evaluate on Fedora rawhide, and then hit
the switch to make it the default.

We will also need regression testcases, although not sure what kind
of coverage we will need to provide (our own testsuite currently does not
trigger any issue though).

> 
> --Mark
> 
>>> ---
>>>   elf/dl-deps.c | 14 ++++++++++----
>>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/elf/dl-deps.c b/elf/dl-deps.c
>>> index 237d9636c5..e15f7f83d8 100644
>>> --- a/elf/dl-deps.c
>>> +++ b/elf/dl-deps.c
>>> @@ -73,13 +73,19 @@ _dl_build_local_scope (struct link_map **list, struct link_map *map)
>>>   {
>>>     struct link_map **p = list;
>>>     struct link_map **q;
>>> +  struct link_map **r;
>>>       *p++ = map;
>>>     map->l_reserved = 1;
>>> -  if (map->l_initfini)
>>> -    for (q = map->l_initfini + 1; *q; ++q)
>>> -      if (! (*q)->l_reserved)
>>> -    p += _dl_build_local_scope (p, *q);
>>> +
>>> +  for (r = list; r < p; ++r)
>>> +    if ((*r)->l_initfini)
>>> +      for (q = (*r)->l_initfini + 1; *q; ++q)
>>> +    if (! (*q)->l_reserved)
>>> +      {
>>> +        *p++ = *q;
>>> +        (*q)->l_reserved = 1;
>>> +      }
>>>     return p - list;
>>>   }
>>>   

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-12 20:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-09 23:53 Khem Raj
2022-01-11 19:26 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2022-01-12 19:08   ` Mark Hatle
2022-01-12 20:12     ` Adhemerval Zanella [this message]
2022-01-12 20:41       ` Mark Hatle
2022-01-13 11:52         ` Adhemerval Zanella
2022-01-13 16:33           ` Mark Hatle
2022-01-13 17:20             ` Adhemerval Zanella
2022-01-13 18:00               ` Mark Hatle
2022-01-13 18:37                 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2022-01-13 19:01                   ` Carlos O'Donell
2022-01-13 19:02 ` Carlos O'Donell

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=3d6799fe-2b9d-4780-254d-dbd0799483ae@linaro.org \
    --to=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
    --cc=carlos@redhat.com \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    --cc=mark.hatle@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=raj.khem@gmail.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).