lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] ELF: Add ELF program property parsing support
From
Date
On Mon, 2019-09-02 at 10:28 +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 06:03:27PM +0100, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 09:34 +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 06:37:45AM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 06:23:40PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > > > ELF program properties will needed for detecting whether to enable
> > > > > optional architecture or ABI features for a new ELF process.
> > > > >
> > > > > For now, there are no generic properties that we care about, so do
> > > > > nothing unless CONFIG_ARCH_USE_GNU_PROPERTY=y.
> > > > >
> > > > > Otherwise, the presence of properties using the PT_PROGRAM_PROPERTY
> > > > > phdrs entry (if any), and notify each property to the arch code.
> > > > >
> > > > > For now, the added code is not used.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review.
> > >
> > > Do you have any thoughts on Yu-Cheng Yu's comments? It would be nice to
> > > early-terminate the scan if we can, but my feeling so far was that the
> > > scan is cheap, the number of properties is unlikely to be more than a
> > > smallish integer, and the code separation benefits of just calling the
> > > arch code for every property probably likely outweigh the costs of
> > > having to iterate over every property. We could always optimise it
> > > later if necessary.
> > >
> > > I need to double-check that there's no way we can get stuck in an
> > > infinite loop with the current code, though I've not seen it in my
> > > testing. I should throw some malformed notes at it though.
> >
> > Here is my arch_parse_elf_property() and objdump of the property.
> > The parser works fine.
>
> [...]
>
> > int arch_parse_elf_property(u32 type, const void *data, size_t datasz,
> >
> > bool compat, struct arch_elf_state *state)
> > {
> > if (type
> > != GNU_PROPERTY_X86_FEATURE_1_AND)
> > return -ENOENT;
>
> For error returns, I was following this convention:
>
> EIO: invalid ELF file
>
> ENOEXEC: valid ELF file, but we can't (or won't) support it
>
> 0: OK, or don't care

From errno-base.h, EIO is for I/O error; ENOEXEC is for Exec format error.
Is this closer to what is happening?

>
> This function gets called for every property, including properties that
> the arch code may not be interested in, so for properties you don't care
> about here you should return 0.

Yes.

>
> >
> > if (datasz < sizeof(unsigned int))
> > return -ENOEXEC;
>
> Should this be != ?
>
> According to the draft x86-64 psABI spec [1],
> X86_PROPERTY_FEATURE_1_AND (and all properties based on
> GNU_PROPERTY_X86_UINT32_AND_LO) has data consisting of a single 4-byte
> unsigned integer.
>
> > state->gnu_property = *(unsigned int *)data;
> > return 0;
> > }

Yes, I will change it.

Thanks,
Yu-cheng

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-04 00:39    [W:0.048 / U:7.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site