[PATCH] D16599: ELF: Define another entry point.
Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon Feb 1 12:27:58 PST 2016
Even if a file is technically sane, you can craft a malicious one; for
example, you can probably crash the linker by OOM by setting a very large
number as an alignment requirement for each section so that the size of
output becomes huge. It is easily doable using assembly. So my answer
is "any clang or gcc produced .o not including inline asm". (It does not
mean that we do not try to recover from errors caused by bad assembly code,
but we don't/can't guarantee 100% recovery.)
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Rafael Espíndola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 February 2016 at 15:06, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Rafael Espíndola
> > <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 1 February 2016 at 14:46, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I think one of the main use cases that has been requested is to be
> >> > to
> >> > programmatically call the linker with "known good" object files (i.e.
> >> > produced by the compiler). That simplifies things a lot. Rui's recent
> >> > patches that are thread_local'izing existing globals seems like a
> >> > satisfactory approach. Or am I missing something?
> >> Yes, known good files are a lot easier to handle. We just have to be
> >> clear what "known good" is.
> >> > The R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX situation can probably be likened to
> >> > giving clang a piece of source code with an inline asm that has:
> >> >
> >> > .text
> >> > .byte <some garbage>
> >> >
> >> > in it. We don't guarantee that the output "makes sense" because
> >> > really no way for us to know what "makes sense" in a precise way
> >> > a
> >> > way that we can program).
> >> Would we still be required to check the offsets so we don't crash? An
> >> assembly file can contain
> >> .reloc 0, R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX, foo
> >> .long 4
> >> which would put that relocation in an invalid location. In general, is
> >> an arbitrary assembly file to be considered "known good"? Is that true
> >> even for things like
> >> .section .eh_frame, ....
> >> garbage
> >> that the linker has to parse?
> > I think the answer is case-by-case, but I don't think we have to
> > to recover from errors caused by carefully-crafted malicious object
> > (Is there anyone who disagrees with that?)
> It is definitely not a use case *I* have an interest in. I just want
> to be an agreement on what use case we want to support at the moment.
> Is it "any .o file", "any llvm-mc or gas produced .o", "any clang or
> gcc produced .o not including inline asm"?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-commits