Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:32:44 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/2] xtensa FDPIC port

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:41:07AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 11:00:54AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 10:01:35AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:44:13AM -0700, Max Filippov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 2:45 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:55:56PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 07:30:57PM -0700, Max Filippov wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 6:48 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 05:48:50PM -0700, Max Filippov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 4:00 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 01:03:17PM -0700, Max Filippov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > functional/dlopen fails with the
> > > > > > > > > > >   src/functional/dlopen.c:39: dlsym main failed: (null)
> > > > > > > > > > > There's no failure in the dlsym call, but the pointers don't match.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is this something related to canonical function descriptors? Is it
> > > > > > > > > > musl's fault or a bug in the tooling? I suspect the latter.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, dlsym() returns the pointer into def.dso->funcdescs,
> > > > > > > > > but (void *)main returns the pointer to the canonical function
> > > > > > > > > descriptor. I understand that the linker must use the
> > > > > > > > > R_XTENSA_FUNCDESC relocation for the locally defined
> > > > > > > > > global symbol instead of the .rofixup entries.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If the xtensa FDPIC ABI is going to be that the linker makes canonical
> > > > > > > > function descriptors, I think that's workable, but the dynamic linker
> > > > > > > > would need a way to find and usee them. I'm not sure how that would
> > > > > > > > work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The simple (but probably less efficient) way is to copy what SH did
> > > > > > > > and have the dynamic linker always be responsible for them (load
> > > > > > > > descriptor address from GOT).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've built and tested SH FDPIC toolchain, it fails this test in exactly
> > > > > > > the same way: pointer loaded directly does not match the pointer
> > > > > > > returned by dlsym().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I've been able to reproduce this and it's a clear bug. There does
> > > > > > not seem to be any way the dynamic linker could find these GOTFUNCDESC
> > > > > > slots to use them as a canonical address for the function, and
> > > > > > moreover, they're not even unique; there would be one per library.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The code path for legitimize_pic_address in sh.c that emits
> > > > > > GOTFUNCDESC has the wrong logic. A simple fix would be just making
> > > > > > that path never be taken, but I'm not sure if that would break use of
> > > > > > GOTFUNCDESC for pure-call purposes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The condition should probably be something like: if it's just used for
> > > > > > a call (if this is even needed; pure call is probably handled
> > > > > > elsewhere) or if the function is static or hidden, use GOTFUNCDESC;
> > > > > > otherwise, use GOT.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I might try patching it and see what happens.
> > > > >
> > > > > Attached patch seems to fix it. I'm not sure if this is the most
> > > > > idiomatic way to write the predicate in gcc sources, but it should be
> > > > > correct.
> > > > 
> > > > It's not what I observe. On my side it doesn't change the result of the
> > > > dlopen test, and it also breaks building of all statically-linked tests.
> > > > 
> > > > There are no relocations against the symbol 'main' neither in the test
> > > > built with the original gcc nor in the test built with the patched one.
> > > > dlopen.o built with the original gcc had R_SH_GOTOFFFUNCDESC
> > > > relocation against the symbol 'main', dlopen.o built with the patched
> > > > gcc has R_SH_GOTOFF instead. The code generated with the patched
> > > > gcc:
> > > > 
> > > >        if (dlsym(g, "main") != (void*)main) {
> > > > 28c:   50 d1           mov.l   3d0 <main+0x3d0>,r1     ! 0 <main>
> > > > 28e:   8c 31           add     r8,r1
> > > > 290:   12 61           mov.l   @r1,r1
> > > > 292:   13 62           mov     r1,r2
> > > > 294:   8f 91           mov.w   3b6 <main+0x3b6>,r1     ! 1e0
> > > > 296:   ec 31           add     r14,r1
> > > > 298:   23 65           mov     r2,r5
> > > > 29a:   1c 54           mov.l   @(48,r1),r4
> > > > 29c:   83 6c           mov     r8,r12
> > > > 29e:   4d d6           mov.l   3d4 <main+0x3d4>,r6     ! 130
> > > > 2a0:   03 06           bsrf    r6
> > > > 2a2:   09 00           nop
> > > > 2a4:   03 61           mov     r0,r1
> > > > 2a6:   4c d2           mov.l   3d8 <main+0x3d8>,r2     ! 0 <main>
> > > > 2a8:   8c 32           add     r8,r2
> > > > 2aa:   20 31           cmp/eq  r2,r1
> > > > 2ac:   27 89           bt      2fe <main+0x2fe>
> > > > ....
> > > > 3d8:   00 00           .word 0x0000
> > > >                        3d8: R_SH_GOTOFF        main
> > > > 
> > > > doesn't look right to me at all. Using R_SH_GOTOFF
> > > > for the symbol in text doesn't make sense. Using R_SH_GOT
> > > > (AFAIU that's what you meant it to be) doesn't make sense
> > > > to me as well, as the value stored in the GOT would be the
> > > > address of the main() entry point, not of its descriptor.
> > > > 
> > > > I believe that gcc need to generate R_SH_GOTFUNCDESC
> > > > instead of R_SH_GOTOFFFUNCDESC for this test to work
> > > > correctly, and that the linker need to put R_SH_FUNCDESC
> > > > relocation against that GOT entry, so that the dynamic linker
> > > > could put there the address of the function descriptor associated
> > > > with the symbol.
> > > 
> > > Indeed I messed this up. Ignore that patch. You're right that use of
> > > R_SH_GOTOFFFUNCDESC is wrong -- it's "Used for the FDPIC-relative
> > > offset to the function descriptor itself", which is never a constant
> > > except for static/hidden functions or when static linking.
> > > 
> > > However, you can test switching it to R_SH_GOTFUNCDESC just by using
> > > -fPIC, and when you link, you still get the same problem, because the
> > > linker is breaking it by binding at ld-time. So there are at least two
> > > bugs in play here.
> > 
> > The offending logic in bfd linker is SYMBOL_FUNCDESC_LOCAL macro in
> > bfd/elf32-sh.c. SYMBOL_REFERENCES_LOCAL is not sufficient to conclude
> > that the FUNCDESC can be expanded at ld time. I'm not sure how to
> > write it yet, but the condition is:
> > 
> >     !dynamic_linking || (SYMBOL_REFERENCES_LOCAL && !visible_outside_dso)
> > 
> > The existing elf_hash_table (INFO)->dynamic_sections_created clause
> > covers !dynamic_linking mostly except that it will give the wrong
> > result for static PIE (which is largely gratuitous for FDPIC, but
> > should still be expected to work).
> 
> I have what seem to be working patches for the linker and gcc.
> 
> The bfd link code for sh/fdpic was doing two things wrong: using the
> condition "locally defined" rather than "externally visible" for
> deciding how to handle function descriptors, and "optimizing" out the
> symbol reference even once that was fixed. The patch corrects both
> behaviors.
> 
> GCC was wrongly using GOTOFFFUNCDESC rather than GOTFUNCDESC for
> locally defined but externally visible symbols. This could be worked
> around with -fPIC, but the patch fixes it. (Probably should do
> internal too, but nobody uses internal visibility because it's
> underspecified and broken.)
> 
> Following the same logic changes should fix the problem on xtensa.
> 
> Rich

> --- binutils-2.33.1/bfd/elf32-sh.c.orig	2024-04-04 23:11:28.739136261 +0900
> +++ binutils-2.33.1/bfd/elf32-sh.c	2024-04-08 23:14:24.496915074 +0900
> @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
>     not.  If the symbol is protected, we want the local address, but
>     its function descriptor must be assigned by the dynamic linker.  */
>  #define SYMBOL_FUNCDESC_LOCAL(INFO, H) \
> -  (SYMBOL_REFERENCES_LOCAL (INFO, H) \
> +  (!(H) || (H)->dynindx < 0 || (H)->forced_local \
>     || ! elf_hash_table (INFO)->dynamic_sections_created)
>  .
>  #define SH_PARTIAL32 TRUE
> @@ -4405,20 +4405,6 @@
>  	      /* Undefined weak symbol which will not be dynamically
>  		 resolved later; leave it at zero.  */
>  	      goto funcdesc_leave_zero;
> -	    else if (SYMBOL_CALLS_LOCAL (info, h)
> -		     && ! SYMBOL_FUNCDESC_LOCAL (info, h))
> -	      {
> -		/* If the symbol needs a non-local function descriptor
> -		   but binds locally (i.e., its visibility is
> -		   protected), emit a dynamic relocation decayed to
> -		   section+offset.  This is an optimization; the dynamic
> -		   linker would resolve our function descriptor request
> -		   to our copy of the function anyway.  */
> -		dynindx = elf_section_data (h->root.u.def.section
> -					    ->output_section)->dynindx;
> -		relocation += h->root.u.def.section->output_offset
> -		  + h->root.u.def.value;
> -	      }
>  	    else if (! SYMBOL_FUNCDESC_LOCAL (info, h))
>  	      {
>  		/* If the symbol is dynamic and there will be dynamic
> 

> --- gcc-11.4.0/gcc/config/sh/sh.c.orig	2024-04-04 05:52:42.125373614 +0900
> +++ gcc-11.4.0/gcc/config/sh/sh.c	2024-04-04 22:54:01.875106654 +0900
> @@ -9147,7 +9147,7 @@
>  	{
>  	  /* Weak functions may be NULL which doesn't work with
>  	     GOTOFFFUNCDESC because the runtime offset is not known.  */
> -	  if (SYMBOL_REF_WEAK (orig))
> +	  if (SYMBOL_REF_WEAK (orig) || (TREE_PUBLIC(SYMBOL_REF_DECL(orig)) && DECL_VISIBILITY (SYMBOL_REF_DECL(orig)) != VISIBILITY_HIDDEN))
>  	    emit_insn (gen_symGOTFUNCDESC2reg (reg, orig));
>  	  else
>  	    emit_insn (gen_symGOTOFFFUNCDESC2reg (reg, orig));
> 

Binutils bug report:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31619

GCC bug report:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114641

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.