This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add an x86 IFUNC testcase for [BZ #20019]
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Khem Raj <raj dot khem at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:02:24 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add an x86 IFUNC testcase for [BZ #20019]
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20161004184621.GB27454@intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610042122170.17011@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAMe9rOrvz5nZZUVMq5qc_FT2g9iKzpGQ6-ydESmmm3CP5BVmJg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610042253170.17011@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAMe9rOpzKV4oLgCrX+scC=MVH-TM_TRAcOZrLUg06L0YvEZuRw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610050009080.17011@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAMe9rOrtbOXOKYa2fiazJZb0WfZ0KbRr0thwvYOTdL=D3qHt-g@mail.gmail.com> <bc2016fe-c194-582b-dc80-a6392d51aa17@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOr=LKK6XVHGh2uehYgkRhLmEXMcEsdP25zd0ny8GPGfBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMe9rOpEYGGw3MxO9v+J0u3WWN1A-Nm8p9=J1m7_7g9SA4e3pg@mail.gmail.com> <00fa4a04-7c02-fe70-7892-3f6f90f733cb@gmail.com> <CAMe9rOpfYBeM+kmL38zVgrPa-b-hk2rOLd7Rf_8hRPXPphJbWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMKF1sqrUisi=TsWBYkB3WoRUMjuKAS0iOokFEuQV0XRCg9p5w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMe9rOqssgAesmUr9r1zHc1Lzb1XffrFNcewbEL1C1bsrMjwJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMKF1sqphKdNv=EDrMzu=m6neMcK8G27gPxWnsGgbLUzhzh_2Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:00 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:15 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/13/17 11:03 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:19 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/05/2016 02:16 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can try __builtin_memcpy, instread of __builtin_memmove. There are 2
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I changed it to use __builtin_memset.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> acceptable results. One is ld.so issues an error and the other is program runs.
>>>>>>>>>>> On x86, ld.so issues an error. I don't know what should happen on others.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You could make the test pass on either of those results (while failing if
>>>>>>>>>> ld.so crashes).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I moved the test to elf. It passes if the test runs or ld.so issues an
>>>>>>>>> error. Please try it on arm, powerpc and s390.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the wrong way to test this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point of this test is this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Verify that an unversioned symbol reference in DSO A which has no DT_NEEDED
>>>>>>>> on DSO B, when resolved to a symbol definition in DSO B, when the symbol in
>>>>>>>> DSO B is an IFUNC with a resolver, that DSO B is relocated _before_ the IFUNC
>>>>>>>> resolver is called, because DSO B's resolver might need global data to make
>>>>>>>> the IFUNC decision e.g. GOT setup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The invariant we want to hold true for IFUNC is that to call the resolver
>>>>>>>> function you must have relocated the DSO which contains the resolver. This _should_
>>>>>>>> have been done by a symbol reocation dependency analysis, but that isn't working
>>>>>>>> correctly IMO or needs deeper analysis in the dynamic loader.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The solution we want in place today is to issue some kind of diagnostic until we
>>>>>>>> fix the real problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The test should look like this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - DSO A with an unversioned symbol reference to 'foo'.
>>>>>>>> - DSO B with a symbol definition of 'foo' as an ifunc with 'foo_resolver' as the
>>>>>>>> resolver function which references global data from DSO C to decide which of
>>>>>>>> two functions to return.
>>>>>>>> - DSO C with global data set to a value.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point is that DSO B depends on DSO C and has DT_NEEDED on it, so C will get
>>>>>>>> relocated first, then B, such that B's GOT is setup to access C's global data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When handling the reference to 'foo' in DSO A we should on x86_64 and i686
>>>>>>>> get the error about needing to relink DSO A so it depends on DSO B, to form
>>>>>>>> the initialization order of C->B->A.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I expect this test case will now crash the other arches, rather than just
>>>>>>>> avoiding the crash by relying on internal libc.so details about which ifuncs
>>>>>>>> you're using.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is one step towards a better definition of IFUNC semantics, which need to
>>>>>>>> be more clearly defined (something I wish I had time to define and fix so
>>>>>>>> more projects could use them).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IFUNC resolver can fail for various reasons. My goal is to make sure
>>>>>>> that IFUNC inside of glibc works correctly or an error message is given
>>>>>>> when glibc isn't used properly. In case of x86, CPU feature info is
>>>>>>> retrieved and stored in ld.so very early at startup, which is used by IFUNC
>>>>>>> and only accessible in libc.so and libm.so after they have been relocated.
>>>>>>> My change in x86 ld.so checks it and my test verifies the check. My fix
>>>>>>> won't cover other possible IFUNC failures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the IFUNC relocation is performed before the providing shared
>>>>>> library is unrelocated, the returned function address will be 0 and
>>>>>> program will segfault when the function is called.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please apply this patch and run the test if your platform has IFUNC. I only
>>>>>> enabled the unsafe resolver check for i386 and x86-64. It is straightforward
>>>>>> to add check for other platforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will test it out shortly. One thing I see, the runner script for test
>>>>> is calling out for /bin/bash and the script does not use any bash
>>>>> extentions perhaps using /bin/sh is enough.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is the updated patch with some fixes.
>>>
>>> This still failed on 32bit in same way.
>>>
>>
>> Did you get segfault?
>
> No, I was testing it for https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21041
> I am getting same ldso IFUNC messages
I updated ld.so for i686 and x86-64 so that ld.so issues an error message,
instead of segfautl. Have you tested it on non-x86 machines?
--
H.J.