[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d6d3e1ae-1259-5bb6-1bc1-642b32dad138@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:30:42 -0600
From: Laine Gholson <laine.gholson@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: ldd not working on ET_EXEC executables
You mean RANDMMAP? PaX's RANDMMAP feature ignoring the address your requesting it (without MAP_FIXED) is perfectly valid, to quote POSIX:
"When MAP_FIXED is not set, the implementation uses addr in an implementation-defined manner to arrive at pa."
mmap2(0x10000, 73728, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) = 0x1234abcd
You're not passing MAP_FIXED to mmap() but are expecting the kernel to still use the address you're giving it, which is wrong.
(as a side note, glibc works and it uses MAP_FIXED)
Thanks,
Laine Gholson
On 12/05/16 20:33, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 07:39:32PM -0600, Laine Gholson wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am running musl on a ARM platform, and ldd won't work on a executable with the ET_EXEC type.
>>
>> running GNU ld 2.25.1, gcc 6.2.0, and musl 1.1.15-git-71-g54991729
>>
>> $ gcc -fPIE -pie test.c -o test-pie
>> $ ldd test-pie
>> <no error>
>> $ gcc -fno-PIE -no-pie test.c -o test-nopie
>> $ ldd test-nopie
>> ldd: test-nopie: Not a valid dynamic program
>> $ elfedit --output-type DYN test-nopie
>> $ ldd test-nopie
>> <no error>
>>
>> Any idea why ldd says executables with the ET_EXEC type aren't valid?
>
> strace it; I suspect you'll find that mmap is not honoring the
> requested address. This is a bug introduced intentionally by grsec/pax
> and perhaps other hardened kernels.
>
> Rich
>
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.
