On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 08:40:27PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 4/12/22 19:03, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > bFLT binaries are usually created using elf2flt.
> >
> > The linker script used by elf2flt has defined the .data section like the
> > following for the last 19 years:
> >
> > .data : {
> > _sdata = . ;
> > __data_start = . ;
> > data_start = . ;
> > *(.got.plt)
> > *(.got)
> > FILL(0) ;
> > . = ALIGN(0x20) ;
> > LONG(-1)
> > . = ALIGN(0x20) ;
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > It places the .got.plt input section before the .got input section.
> > The same is true for the default linker script (ld --verbose) on most
> > architectures except x86/x86-64.
> >
> > The binfmt_flat loader should relocate all GOT entries until it encounters
> > a -1 (the LONG(-1) in the linker script).
> >
> > The problem is that the .got.plt input section starts with a GOTPLT header
> > that has the first word (two u32 entries for 64-bit archs) set to -1.
> > See e.g. the binutils implementation for architectures [1] [2] [3] [4].
> >
> > This causes the binfmt_flat loader to stop relocating GOT entries
> > prematurely and thus causes the application to crash when running.
> >
> > Fix this by ignoring -1 in the first two u32 entries in the .data section.
> >
> > A -1 will only be ignored for the first two entries for bFLT binaries with
> > FLAT_FLAG_GOTPIC set, which is unconditionally set by elf2flt if the
> > supplied ELF binary had the symbol _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ defined, therefore
> > ELF binaries without a .got input section should remain unaffected.
> >
> > Tested on RISC-V Canaan Kendryte K210 and RISC-V QEMU nommu_virt_defconfig.
> >
> > [1] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=bfd/elfnn-riscv.c;hb=binutils-2_38#l3275
> > [2] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=bfd/elfxx-tilegx.c;hb=binutils-2_38#l4023
> > [3] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=bfd/elf32-tilepro.c;hb=binutils-2_38#l3633
> > [4] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=bfd/elfnn-loongarch.c;hb=binutils-2_38#l2978
> >
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > RISC-V elf2flt patches are still not merged, they can be found here:
> > https://github.com/floatious/elf2flt/tree/riscv
> >
> > buildroot branch for k210 nommu (including this patch and elf2flt patches):
> > https://github.com/floatious/buildroot/tree/k210-v14
> >
> > fs/binfmt_flat.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/binfmt_flat.c b/fs/binfmt_flat.c
> > index 626898150011..b80009e6392e 100644
> > --- a/fs/binfmt_flat.c
> > +++ b/fs/binfmt_flat.c
> > @@ -793,8 +793,17 @@ static int load_flat_file(struct linux_binprm *bprm,
> > u32 addr, rp_val;
> > if (get_user(rp_val, rp))
> > return -EFAULT;
> > - if (rp_val == 0xffffffff)
> > + /*
> > + * The first word in the GOTPLT header is -1 on certain
> > + * architechtures. (On 64-bit, that is two u32 entries.)
> > + * Ignore these entries, so that we stop relocating GOT
> > + * entries first when we encounter the -1 after the GOT.
> > + */
>
> /*
> * The first word in the GOTPLT header is -1 on certain
> * architectures (on 64-bit, that is two u32 entries).
> * Ignore these entries so that we stop relocating GOT
> * entries when we encounter the first -1 entry after
> * the GOTPLT header.
> */
Sure, I can update the comment when I send a v2.
>
> > + if (rp_val == 0xffffffff) {
> > + if (rp - (u32 __user *)datapos < 2)
> > + continue;
>
> Would it be safer to check that the following rp_val is also -1 ? Also,
> does this work with 32-bits arch ? Shouldn't the "< 2" be "< 1" for
> 32-bits arch ?
I think that checking that the previous entry is also -1 will not work,
as it will just be a single entry for 32-bit.
And I don't see the need to complicate this logic by having a 64-bit
and a 32-bit version of the check.
The whole GOT (.got.plt + .got) will be more than two words anyway, if
there is a GOT (i.e. if flag FLAT_FLAG_GOTPIC is set in the bFLT binary),
so the "end of GOT"/LONG(-1) will always come way after these first two
entries anyway.
Another reason why I don't fancy a 64-bit and 32-bit version is because
some architectures might be 64-bit, but I assume that they can be running
a 32-bit userland. (And in comparison with the ELF header that tells if
the binary is 32-bit or 64-bit, I don't see something similar in the bFLT
header.)
Kind regards,
Niklas
