On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 06:16:19PM +0300, Андрей Аладьев wrote:
> Hello Markus, I want to ask a question about this one:
>
> > The issue is more complicated, because the app can have an unbounded
> number of PT_LOAD segments with the PF_W flag absent. So checking the
> relocations would require the dynlinker to first iterate over all PHDRs to
> check for the unlikely case that textrels are present. Only because they
> might be.
>
> I made a light code overview and found that there is already a mapping for
> segments: "loadmap":
>
> dso->loadmap->segs[i].p_vaddr = ph->p_vaddr;
> dso->loadmap->segs[i].p_memsz = ph->p_memsz;
This is only for FDPIC, which is not used on any platforms you care
about unless you already know what it is. :-)
> We can add here the following line:
> dso->loadmap->segs[i].readonly = ph->p_flags & PF_W;
>
> Than add "readonly" into "fdpic_loadseg":
> struct fdpic_loadseg {
> uintptr_t addr, p_vaddr, p_memsz;
> bool readonly;
> };
No you can't, because this structure is ABI between the loader (kernel
or otherwise) and the program. It's not an internal structure of the
dynamic linker.
Moreover, adding such a thing is not desirable because it adds a
linear-search of an array of load segments to each relocation,
increasing load time of every correct program for the sake of
diagnosing incorrect ones in a friendly manner. This is not a
reasonable tradeoff and it's why I proposed the "hull" approach
(that's O(1) and safe against bogus relocations clobbering memory
outside the range of the library being relocated, but could still
fault with a mix of LOAD maps). The FDPIC approach is only done
because it's essential for being able to share program text on a
system without MMU, not because it's "nice".
Rich