linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] objtool: Rework rebuild

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YFRtbkM9jA9iCWQm@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:22:54 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, jgross@...e.com, mbenes@...e.cz,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] objtool: Rework rebuild_reloc logic

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 12:38:42PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 06:04:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:36:40AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > I was thinking you could get a section changed without touching
> > > > relocations, but while that is theoretically possible, it is exceedingly
> > > > unlikely (and objtool doesn't do that).
> > > 
> > > Hm?  This is a *relocation* section, not a normal one.  So by
> > > definition, it only changes when its relocations change.
> > 
> > The way I read this code:
> > 
> >  	list_for_each_entry(sec, &elf->sections, list) {
> >  		if (sec->changed) {
> > +			if (sec->reloc &&
> > +			    elf_rebuild_reloc_section(elf, sec->reloc)) {
> > +				WARN_ELF("elf_rebuild_reloc_section");
> > +				return -1;
> > +			}
> > 
> > is that we iterate the regular sections (which could be dirtied because
> > we changed some data), and if that section has a relocation section, we
> > rebuild that for good measure (even though it might not have altered
> > relocations).
> > 
> > Or am I just totally confused ?
> 
> Ah, you're right.  I'm the one that's confused.  I guess I was also
> confused when I wrote that hunk, but it just happens to work anyway.
> 
> It would be cleaner to do something like
> 
> 			if ((is_reloc_sec(sec) &&	
> 			    elf_rebuild_reloc_section(elf, sec)) {
> 
> so we process the changed reloc section directly, instead of relying on
> the (most likely) fact that the corresponding text section also changed.

Indeed. Done.

--- a/tools/objtool/elf.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/elf.c
@@ -814,6 +814,11 @@ struct section *elf_create_reloc_section
 	}
 }
 
+static inline bool is_reloc_section(struct section *reloc)
+{
+	return reloc->base && reloc->base->reloc == reloc;
+}
+
 static int elf_rebuild_rel_reloc_section(struct section *sec, int nr)
 {
 	struct reloc *reloc;
@@ -948,7 +953,7 @@ int elf_write(struct elf *elf)
 	/* Update changed relocation sections and section headers: */
 	list_for_each_entry(sec, &elf->sections, list) {
 		if (sec->changed) {
-			if (sec->reloc &&
+			if (is_reloc_section(sec) &&
 			    elf_rebuild_reloc_section(elf, sec->reloc)) {
 				WARN_ELF("elf_rebuild_reloc_section");
 				return -1;