[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200629165603.GD900899@rani.riverdale.lan>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:56:03 -0400
From: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Golovin <dima@...ovin.in>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl@...rceware.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] x86/boot: Check that there are no runtime
relocations
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 09:20:31AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 06:11:59PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 18:09, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:09:28AM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > > Add a linker script check that there are no runtime relocations, and
> > > > remove the old one that tries to check via looking for specially-named
> > > > sections in the object files.
> > > >
> > > > Drop the tests for -fPIE compiler option and -pie linker option, as they
> > > > are available in all supported gcc and binutils versions (as well as
> > > > clang and lld).
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile | 28 +++-----------------------
> > > > arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux.lds.S | 8 ++++++++
> > > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > >
> > > question below ...
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux.lds.S
> > > > index a4a4a59a2628..a78510046eec 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux.lds.S
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux.lds.S
> > > > @@ -42,6 +42,12 @@ SECTIONS
> > > > *(.rodata.*)
> > > > _erodata = . ;
> > > > }
> > > > + .rel.dyn : {
> > > > + *(.rel.*)
> > > > + }
> > > > + .rela.dyn : {
> > > > + *(.rela.*)
> > > > + }
> > > > .got : {
> > > > *(.got)
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Should these be marked (INFO) as well?
> > >
> >
> > Given that sections marked as (INFO) will still be emitted into the
> > ELF image, it does not really make a difference to do this for zero
> > sized sections.
>
> Oh, I misunderstood -- I though they were _not_ emitted; I see now what
> you said was not allocated. So, disk space used for the .got.plt case,
> but not memory space used. Sorry for the confusion!
>
> -Kees
In the case of the REL[A] and .got sections, they are actually already
not emitted at all into the ELF file now that they are zero size.
For .got.plt, it is only emitted for 32-bit (with the 3 reserved
entries), the 64-bit linker seems to get rid of it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists