| Message ID | 20170921093729.1080368AC1@po15668-vm-win7.idsi0.si.c-s.fr (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm: fix RODATA_TEST failure "rodata_test: test data was not read only" | expand |
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote: > On powerpc, RODATA_TEST fails with message the following messages: > > [ 6.199505] Freeing unused kernel memory: 528K > [ 6.203935] rodata_test: test data was not read only > > This is because GCC allocates it to .data section: > > c0695034 g O .data 00000004 rodata_test_data Uuuh... that seems like a compiler bug. It's marked "const" -- it should never end up in .data. I would argue that this has done exactly what it was supposed to do, and shows that something has gone wrong. It should always be const. Adding "static" should just change visibility. (I'm not opposed to the static change, but it seems to paper over a problem with the compiler...) -Kees > > Since commit 056b9d8a76924 ("mm: remove rodata_test_data export, > add pr_fmt"), rodata_test_data is used only inside rodata_test.c > By declaring it static, it gets properly allocated into .rodata > section instead of .data: > > c04df710 l O .rodata 00000004 rodata_test_data > > Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> > --- > mm/rodata_test.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/rodata_test.c b/mm/rodata_test.c > index 6bb4deb12e78..d908c8769b48 100644 > --- a/mm/rodata_test.c > +++ b/mm/rodata_test.c > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ > #include <linux/uaccess.h> > #include <asm/sections.h> > > -const int rodata_test_data = 0xC3; > +static const int rodata_test_data = 0xC3; > > void rodata_test(void) > { > -- > 2.13.3 >
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:17:51PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Christophe Leroy > <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote: > > On powerpc, RODATA_TEST fails with message the following messages: > > > > [ 6.199505] Freeing unused kernel memory: 528K > > [ 6.203935] rodata_test: test data was not read only > > > > This is because GCC allocates it to .data section: > > > > c0695034 g O .data 00000004 rodata_test_data > > Uuuh... that seems like a compiler bug. It's marked "const" -- it > should never end up in .data. I would argue that this has done exactly > what it was supposed to do, and shows that something has gone wrong. > It should always be const. Adding "static" should just change > visibility. (I'm not opposed to the static change, but it seems to > paper over a problem with the compiler...) The compiler puts this item in .sdata, for 32-bit. There is no .srodata, so if it wants to use a small data section, it must use .sdata . Non-external, non-referenced symbols are not put in .sdata, that is the difference you see with the "static". I don't think there is a bug here. If you think there is, please open a GCC bug. Segher
From: Segher Boessenkool > Sent: 25 September 2017 08:37 > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:17:51PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Christophe Leroy > > <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote: > > > On powerpc, RODATA_TEST fails with message the following messages: > > > > > > [ 6.199505] Freeing unused kernel memory: 528K > > > [ 6.203935] rodata_test: test data was not read only > > > > > > This is because GCC allocates it to .data section: > > > > > > c0695034 g O .data 00000004 rodata_test_data > > > > Uuuh... that seems like a compiler bug. It's marked "const" -- it > > should never end up in .data. I would argue that this has done exactly > > what it was supposed to do, and shows that something has gone wrong. > > It should always be const. Adding "static" should just change > > visibility. (I'm not opposed to the static change, but it seems to > > paper over a problem with the compiler...) > > The compiler puts this item in .sdata, for 32-bit. There is no .srodata, > so if it wants to use a small data section, it must use .sdata . > > Non-external, non-referenced symbols are not put in .sdata, that is the > difference you see with the "static". > > I don't think there is a bug here. If you think there is, please open > a GCC bug. The .sxxx sections are for 'small' data that can be accessed (typically) using small offsets from a global register. This means that all sections must be adjacent in the image. So you can't really have readonly small data. My guess is that the linker script is putting .srodata in with .sdata. David
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 04:01:55PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Segher Boessenkool > > The compiler puts this item in .sdata, for 32-bit. There is no .srodata, > > so if it wants to use a small data section, it must use .sdata . > > > > Non-external, non-referenced symbols are not put in .sdata, that is the > > difference you see with the "static". > > > > I don't think there is a bug here. If you think there is, please open > > a GCC bug. > > The .sxxx sections are for 'small' data that can be accessed (typically) > using small offsets from a global register. > This means that all sections must be adjacent in the image. > So you can't really have readonly small data. > > My guess is that the linker script is putting .srodata in with .sdata. .srodata does not *exist* (in the ABI). Segher
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 04:01:55PM +0000, David Laight wrote: >> From: Segher Boessenkool >> > The compiler puts this item in .sdata, for 32-bit. There is no .srodata, >> > so if it wants to use a small data section, it must use .sdata . >> > >> > Non-external, non-referenced symbols are not put in .sdata, that is the >> > difference you see with the "static". >> > >> > I don't think there is a bug here. If you think there is, please open >> > a GCC bug. >> >> The .sxxx sections are for 'small' data that can be accessed (typically) >> using small offsets from a global register. >> This means that all sections must be adjacent in the image. >> So you can't really have readonly small data. >> >> My guess is that the linker script is putting .srodata in with .sdata. > > .srodata does not *exist* (in the ABI). So, I still think this is a bug. The variable is marked const: this is not a _suggestion_. :) If the compiler produces output where the variable is writable, that's a bug. I can't tell if this bug is related: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9571 -Kees
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 12:29:45PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Segher Boessenkool > <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 04:01:55PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > >> From: Segher Boessenkool > >> > The compiler puts this item in .sdata, for 32-bit. There is no .srodata, > >> > so if it wants to use a small data section, it must use .sdata . > >> > > >> > Non-external, non-referenced symbols are not put in .sdata, that is the > >> > difference you see with the "static". > >> > > >> > I don't think there is a bug here. If you think there is, please open > >> > a GCC bug. > >> > >> The .sxxx sections are for 'small' data that can be accessed (typically) > >> using small offsets from a global register. > >> This means that all sections must be adjacent in the image. > >> So you can't really have readonly small data. > >> > >> My guess is that the linker script is putting .srodata in with .sdata. > > > > .srodata does not *exist* (in the ABI). > > So, I still think this is a bug. The variable is marked const: this is > not a _suggestion_. :) If the compiler produces output where the > variable is writable, that's a bug. C11 6.7.3/6: "If an attempt is made to modify an object defined with a const-qualified type through use of an lvalue with non-const-qualified type, the behavior is undefined." And that is all that "const" means. The compiler is free to put this var in *no* data section, or to copy it to the stack before using it, or anything else it thinks is a good idea. If you think it would be a good idea for the compiler to change its behaviour here, please file a PR (or send a patch). Please bring arguments why we would want to change this. > I can't tell if this bug is related: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9571 I don't think so: the only remaining bug there is that a copy of the constant is put in .rodata.cst8 (although there is a copy in .sdata2 already). Thanks, Segher
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 12:29:45PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Segher Boessenkool >> <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 04:01:55PM +0000, David Laight wrote: >> >> From: Segher Boessenkool >> >> > The compiler puts this item in .sdata, for 32-bit. There is no .srodata, >> >> > so if it wants to use a small data section, it must use .sdata . >> >> > >> >> > Non-external, non-referenced symbols are not put in .sdata, that is the >> >> > difference you see with the "static". >> >> > >> >> > I don't think there is a bug here. If you think there is, please open >> >> > a GCC bug. >> >> >> >> The .sxxx sections are for 'small' data that can be accessed (typically) >> >> using small offsets from a global register. >> >> This means that all sections must be adjacent in the image. >> >> So you can't really have readonly small data. >> >> >> >> My guess is that the linker script is putting .srodata in with .sdata. >> > >> > .srodata does not *exist* (in the ABI). >> >> So, I still think this is a bug. The variable is marked const: this is >> not a _suggestion_. :) If the compiler produces output where the >> variable is writable, that's a bug. > > C11 6.7.3/6: "If an attempt is made to modify an object defined with a > const-qualified type through use of an lvalue with non-const-qualified > type, the behavior is undefined." > > And that is all that "const" means. > > The compiler is free to put this var in *no* data section, or to copy > it to the stack before using it, or anything else it thinks is a good > idea. The kernel depends on const things being read-only. I realize C11 says this is "undefined", but from a kernel security perspective, const means read-only, and this is true on other architectures. Now, strictly speaking, the compiler is just responsible for doing section assignment for a variable, and the linker then lays things out, but the result carries the requested memory protections (i.e. read-only, executable, etc). If "const" is just a hint, then what is the canonical way to have gcc put a variable into a section that the linker will always request be kept read-only? > If you think it would be a good idea for the compiler to change its > behaviour here, please file a PR (or send a patch). Please bring > arguments why we would want to change this. Sure: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82411 >> I can't tell if this bug is related: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9571 > > I don't think so: the only remaining bug there is that a copy of the > constant is put in .rodata.cst8 (although there is a copy in .sdata2 > already). Okay, thanks for checking. -Kees
diff --git a/mm/rodata_test.c b/mm/rodata_test.c index 6bb4deb12e78..d908c8769b48 100644 --- a/mm/rodata_test.c +++ b/mm/rodata_test.c @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ #include <linux/uaccess.h> #include <asm/sections.h> -const int rodata_test_data = 0xC3; +static const int rodata_test_data = 0xC3; void rodata_test(void) {
On powerpc, RODATA_TEST fails with message the following messages: [ 6.199505] Freeing unused kernel memory: 528K [ 6.203935] rodata_test: test data was not read only This is because GCC allocates it to .data section: c0695034 g O .data 00000004 rodata_test_data Since commit 056b9d8a76924 ("mm: remove rodata_test_data export, add pr_fmt"), rodata_test_data is used only inside rodata_test.c By declaring it static, it gets properly allocated into .rodata section instead of .data: c04df710 l O .rodata 00000004 rodata_test_data Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> --- mm/rodata_test.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)