Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 03:49:38 +0000 (UTC) From: Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org> To: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable-11@freebsd.org Subject: svn commit: r355080 - in stable: 11/lib/libc/secure 12/lib/libc/secure Message-ID: <201911250349.xAP3nc2q094841@repo.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Author: kevans Date: Mon Nov 25 03:49:38 2019 New Revision: 355080 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/355080 Log: MFC r354669, r354672, r354689: move __stack_chk_guard constructor r354669: ssp: add a priority to the __stack_chk_guard constructor First, this commit is a NOP on GCC <= 4.x; this decidedly doesn't work cleanly on GCC 4.2, and it will be gone soon anyways so I chose not to dump time into figuring out if there's a way to make it work. xtoolchain-gcc, clocking in as GCC6, can cope with it just fine and later versions are also generally ok with the syntax. I suspect very few users are running GCC4.2 built worlds and also experiencing potential fallout from the status quo. For dynamically linked applications, this change also means very little. rtld will run libc ctors before most others, so the situation is approximately a NOP for these as well. The real cause for this change is statically linked applications doing almost questionable things in their constructors. qemu-user-static, for instance, creates a thread in a global constructor for their async rcu callbacks. In general, this works in other places- - On OpenBSD, __stack_chk_guard is stored in an .openbsd.randomdata section that's initialized by the kernel in the static case, or ld.so in the dynamic case - On Linux, __stack_chk_guard is apparently stored in TLS and such a problem is circumvented there because the value is presumed stable in the new thread. On FreeBSD, the rcu thread creation ctor and __guard_setup are both unmarked priority. qemu-user-static spins up the rcu thread prior to __guard_setup which starts making function calls- some of these are sprinkled with the canary. In the middle of one of these functions, __guard_setup is invoked in the main thread and __stack_chk_guard changes- qemu-user-static is promptly terminated for an SSP violation that didn't actually happen. This is not an all-too-common problem. We circumvent it here by giving the __stack_chk_guard constructor a solid priority. 200 was chosen because that gives static applications ample range (down to 101) for working around it if they really need to. I suspect most applications will "just work" as expected- the default/non-prioritized flavor of __constructor__ functions run last, and the canary is generally not expected to change as of this point at the very least. This took approximately three weeks of spare time debugging to pin down. r354672: ssp: rework the logic to use priority=200 on clang builds The preproc logic was added at the last minute to appease GCC 4.2, and kevans@ did clearly not go back and double-check that the logic worked out for clang builds to use the new variant. It turns out that clang defines __GNUC__ == 4. Flip it around and check __clang__ as well, leaving a note to remove it later. r354689: ssp: further refine the conditional used for constructor priority __has_attribute(__constructor__) is a better test for clang than defined(__clang__). Switch to it instead. While we're already here and touching it, pfg@ nailed down when GCC actually introduced the priority argument -- 4.3. Use that instead of our hammer-guess of GCC >= 5 for the sake of correctness. PR: 241905 Modified: stable/11/lib/libc/secure/stack_protector.c Directory Properties: stable/11/ (props changed) Changes in other areas also in this revision: Modified: stable/12/lib/libc/secure/stack_protector.c Directory Properties: stable/12/ (props changed) Modified: stable/11/lib/libc/secure/stack_protector.c ============================================================================== --- stable/11/lib/libc/secure/stack_protector.c Mon Nov 25 03:39:13 2019 (r355079) +++ stable/11/lib/libc/secure/stack_protector.c Mon Nov 25 03:49:38 2019 (r355080) @@ -40,11 +40,29 @@ __FBSDID("$FreeBSD$"); #include <unistd.h> #include "libc_private.h" +/* + * We give __guard_setup a defined priority early on so that statically linked + * applications have a defined priority at which __stack_chk_guard will be + * getting initialized. This will not matter to most applications, because + * they're either not usually statically linked or they simply don't do things + * in constructors that would be adversely affected by their positioning with + * respect to this initialization. + * + * This conditional should be removed when GCC 4.2 is removed. + */ +#if __has_attribute(__constructor__) || __GNUC_PREREQ__(4, 3) +#define _GUARD_SETUP_CTOR_ATTR \ + __attribute__((__constructor__ (200), __used__)); +#else +#define _GUARD_SETUP_CTOR_ATTR \ + __attribute__((__constructor__, __used__)); +#endif + extern int __sysctl(const int *name, u_int namelen, void *oldp, size_t *oldlenp, void *newp, size_t newlen); long __stack_chk_guard[8] = {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}; -static void __guard_setup(void) __attribute__((__constructor__, __used__)); +static void __guard_setup(void) _GUARD_SETUP_CTOR_ATTR; static void __fail(const char *); void __stack_chk_fail(void); void __chk_fail(void);
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201911250349.xAP3nc2q094841>