From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>
Cc: Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] elf: Remove ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 10:49:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOqfgh0uThAF6c4y8uiAJ6dpCqZr4Co1YP6mMUDr5BSFQw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yp9RlEOZ7v9rCAK7@arm.com>
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:25 AM Szabolcs Nagy via Libc-alpha
<libc-alpha@sourceware.org> wrote:
>
> The 06/01/2022 10:56, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > If an executable has copy relocations for extern protected data, that
> > can only work if the library containing the definition is built with
> > assumptions (a) the compiler emits GOT-generating relocations (b) the
> > linker produces R_*_GLOB_DAT instead of R_*_RELATIVE. Otherwise the
> > library uses its own definition directly and the executable accesses a
> > stale copy. Note: the GOT relocations defeat the purpose of protected
> > visibility as an optimization, but allow rtld to make the executable and
> > library use the same copy when copy relocations are present, but it
> > turns out this never worked perfectly.
> >
> > ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA has strange semantics when both
> > a.so and b.so define protected var and the executable copy relocates
> > var: b.so accesses its own copy even with GLOB_DAT. The behavior change
> > is from commit 62da1e3b00b51383ffa7efc89d8addda0502e107 (x86) and then
> > copied to nios2 (ae5eae7cfc9c4a8297ff82ec6b794faca1976ecc) and arc
> > (0e7d930c4c11de896fe807f67fa1eb756c9c1e05).
> >
> > Without ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA, b.so accesses the copy
> > relocated data like a.so.
> >
> > ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA has another effect in the absence
> > of copy relocations: when a protected data symbol is defined in multiple
> > objects, the code tries to bind the relocation locally. Without
> > ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA, STV_PROTECTED is handled in the
> > same way as STV_DEFAULT: if ld produces GLOB_DAT (some ports of GNU ld),
> > the relocation will bind to the first definition; otherwise (e.g.
> > ld.lld) ld does the binding locally and ld.so doesn't help.
> >
>
> i think we should not change the interposition semantics.
> we should go back to the old behaviour where only copy
> relocs were broken (and there was an expensive workaround
> to deal with protected symbol interposition).
>
> i think you want to revert the elf/dl-lookup.c changes of
>
> commit 62da1e3b00b51383ffa7efc89d8addda0502e107
> Author: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
> CommitDate: 2015-03-31 05:16:57 -0700
>
> Add ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA to x86
>
I am OK to remove support of copy relocation against protected
symbols since it doesn't work properly. My only question is if
ld.so should issue a warning or an error when seeing a copy
relocation against a protected symbol. Copy relocation against
protected symbol defeats the purpose of protected symbol.
> > It's extremely unlikely anyone relies on the
> > ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA behavior, so let's remove it: this
> > removes a check in the symbol lookup code.
> >
> > --
> > Changes from v1:
> > * Reword commit message as suggested by Szabolcs Nagy
> >
> > Changes from v2:
> > * Explain interposition behavior
> > ---
> > elf/dl-lookup.c | 90 -------------------------------------
> > sysdeps/arc/dl-sysdep.h | 21 ---------
> > sysdeps/generic/ldsodefs.h | 12 +----
> > sysdeps/i386/dl-machine.h | 3 +-
> > sysdeps/nios2/dl-sysdep.h | 21 ---------
> > sysdeps/x86/dl-lookupcfg.h | 4 --
> > sysdeps/x86_64/dl-machine.h | 8 +---
> > 7 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 155 deletions(-)
> > delete mode 100644 sysdeps/arc/dl-sysdep.h
> > delete mode 100644 sysdeps/nios2/dl-sysdep.h
> >
> > diff --git a/elf/dl-lookup.c b/elf/dl-lookup.c
> > index a42f6d5390..41d108e0b8 100644
> > --- a/elf/dl-lookup.c
> > +++ b/elf/dl-lookup.c
> ...
> > @@ -854,43 +801,6 @@ _dl_lookup_symbol_x (const char *undef_name, struct link_map *undef_map,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > - int protected = (*ref
> > - && ELFW(ST_VISIBILITY) ((*ref)->st_other) == STV_PROTECTED);
> > - if (__glibc_unlikely (protected != 0))
> > - {
> > - /* It is very tricky. We need to figure out what value to
> > - return for the protected symbol. */
> > - if (type_class == ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_PLT)
> > - {
> > - if (current_value.s != NULL && current_value.m != undef_map)
> > - {
> > - current_value.s = *ref;
> > - current_value.m = undef_map;
> > - }
> > - }
> > - else
> > - {
> > - struct sym_val protected_value = { NULL, NULL };
> > -
> > - for (scope = symbol_scope; *scope != NULL; i = 0, ++scope)
> > - if (do_lookup_x (undef_name, new_hash, &old_hash, *ref,
> > - &protected_value, *scope, i, version, flags,
> > - skip_map,
> > - (ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA
> > - && ELFW(ST_TYPE) ((*ref)->st_info) == STT_OBJECT
> > - && type_class == ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA)
> > - ? ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA
> > - : ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_PLT, NULL) != 0)
> > - break;
> > -
> > - if (protected_value.s != NULL && protected_value.m != undef_map)
> > - {
> > - current_value.s = *ref;
> > - current_value.m = undef_map;
> > - }
> > - }
> > - }
> > -
>
> i think we should keep this part without the
> ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA bit.
--
H.J.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-07 17:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-01 4:50 [PATCH v2] " Fangrui Song
2022-06-01 7:26 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-06-01 7:34 ` Fangrui Song
2022-06-01 9:53 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-06-01 10:56 ` Florian Weimer
2022-06-02 5:21 ` Fangrui Song
2022-06-01 17:56 ` [PATCH v3] " Fangrui Song
2022-06-07 13:24 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-06-07 17:49 ` Fangrui Song
2022-06-08 9:15 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-06-08 17:16 ` Fangrui Song
2022-06-09 8:12 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-06-07 17:49 ` H.J. Lu [this message]
2022-06-07 18:21 ` Fangrui Song
2022-06-07 19:21 ` H.J. Lu
2022-06-07 20:00 ` Fangrui Song
2022-06-07 21:02 ` H.J. Lu
2022-06-07 23:57 ` Fangrui Song
2022-06-08 1:51 ` H.J. Lu
2022-06-08 3:42 ` Fangrui Song
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=CAMe9rOqfgh0uThAF6c4y8uiAJ6dpCqZr4Co1YP6mMUDr5BSFQw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=maskray@google.com \
--cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.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).