[llvm-dev] RFC: Add GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_AND_XXX/GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_OR_XXX

Thu Jun 17 17:24:01 PDT 2021

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 5:06 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote:
>
> On 2021-06-17, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:25 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:46 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:38 PM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On 2021-06-17, H.J. Lu via llvm-dev wrote:
> >> > > >On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 7:02 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:06 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > 1. GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_AND_LO..GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_AND_HI
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >  #define GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_AND_LO 0xb0000000
> >> > > >> >  #define GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_AND_HI 0xb0007fff
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > A bit in the output pr_data field is set only if it is set in all
> >> > > >> > relocatable input pr_data fields.  If all bits in the the output
> >> > > >> > pr_data field are zero, this property should be removed from output.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > If the bit is 1, all input relocatables have the feature.  If the
> >> > > >> > bit is 0 or the property is missing, the info is unknown.
> >> > >
> >> > > How to use AND in practice?
> >> > > Are you going to add .note.gnu.property to all of crt1.o crti.o
> >> > > crtbegin.o crtend.o crtn.o and miscellaneous libc_nonshared.a object
> >> > > files written in assembly?
> >> > >
> >> > > >> > 2. GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_OR_LO..GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_OR_HI
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >  #define GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_OR_LO 0xb0008000
> >> > > >> >  #define GNU_PROPERTY_UINT32_OR_HI 0xb000ffff
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > A bit in the output pr_data field is set if it is set in any
> >> > > >> > relocatable input pr_data fields. If all bits in the the output
> >> > > >> > pr_data field are zero, this property should be removed from output.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > If the bit is 1, some input relocatables have the feature.  If the
> >> > > >> > bit is 0 or the property is missing, the info is unknown.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > The PDF is at
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/Linux-ABI/-/wikis/uploads/0690db0a3b7e5d8a44e0271a4be54aa7/linux-gABI-and-or-2021-01-13.pdf
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > --
> >> > > >> > H.J.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Here is the binutils patch to implement it.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >If there are no objections, I will check it in tomorrow.
> >> > >
> >> > > If the use case is just ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA, it'd be
> >> > > very kind of you if you can collect more use cases before generalizing
> >> > > this into a non-arch-specific GNU PROPERTY.
> >> > >
> >> > > The "copy relocations on protected data symbols" thing is x86 specific
> >> > > and only applies with gcc+GNU ld+glibc.
> >> > > Non-x86 architectures don't have this thing.
> >> > > gold doesn't have this thing.
> >> > > clang doesn't have this thing.
> >> >
> >> > It will be used to remove copy relocation and implement canonical function
> >> > pointers, which will benefit protected data and function.
> >>
> >> The action items in
> >> https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/-/issues/8#note_593822281
> >> can be applied without a GNU PROPERTY.
> >>
> >> If we want to enforce the link-time check that a shared object is no longer
> >> compatible with copy relocations, just make the shared object's non-weak
> >> definitions protected, and add a GNU ld diagnostic like gold
> >> (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19823)
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> For functions,
> >>
> >> On x86-64, gcc -fpic has been using  leaq    addr()(%rip), %rax since at least
> >> 4.1.2 (oldest gcc I can find on godbolt):
> >>
> >>   __attribute__((visibility("protected")))
> >>   void *addr() { return (void*)addr; }
> >>
> >>   // a protected non-definition declaration is the same.
> >>
> >>   // while asm(".protected addr") can use GOT, it is super rare if ever exists
> >>   // outside glibc elf/vis*.c
> >>
> >> I have checked all of binutils 2.11, 2.16, 2.20, 2.24, 2.35. The have
> >> the same diagnostic:
> >>
> >>   relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against protected function `addr' can not
> >> be used when making a shared object
> >>
> >> I think we can assert that taking the address of a protected function
> >> never works with GNU ld.
> >> So no compatibility concern.
> >> Fixing it (https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-June/116985.html)
> >> doesn't need any GNU PROPERTY.
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> For variables, if an object file/archive member does not have GNU PROPERTY, do
> >> you consider it incompatible with "single global definition"? That is why I
> >> mentioned crt1.o crti.o crtbegin.o crtend.o crtn.o and libc_nonshared.a members
> >> written in assembly.
> >>
> >> If you consider such an object compatible with "single global definition", I
> >> don't see why a GNU PROPERTY is needed.
> >>
> >> If you consider such an object incompatible with "single global definition", I
> >> don't see how "single global definition" benefits can be claimed giving so many
> >> prebuilt object files without GNU PROPERTY.
> >
> >Please see the slides in
> >
> >https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/-/issues/8
> >
> >which includes
> >
> >Dynamic Linker for Single Global Definition
> >• Check the single global definition marker on all components, the executable
> >and its dependency shared libraries.
> >• Issue an error/warning if the marker is not consistent on all components.
>
> This is not appealing from a compatibility point of view.
> It is common that a system has mixed shared objects:
>
> -fsingle-global-definition => a.so (marker value 1)
> no -fsingle-global-definition => b.so (marker value 0 or no marker)
> Issuing a warning will be annoying.
>

I updated my proposal to

Dynamic Linker for Single Global Definition
• Check the single global definition marker on all components, the executable
and its dependency shared libraries.
• Disallow copy relocation against definition with the STV_PROTECTED
visibility in the shared library with the marker.
• For systems without function descriptor:
• Disallow non-GOT function pointer reference in executable without
the marker to the
definition with the STV_PROTECTED visibility in a shared library with
the marker.
• Use the address of the function body as function pointer on functions with the
STV_PROTECTED visibility, which are defined in shared libraries with the marker.

-- 
H.J.