Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add an x86 IFUNC testcase for [BZ #20019]

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

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?



-- 
H.J.