| Message ID | 20240405123550.1748641-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 50c2be2390be849176297d231ecce71c6642f407 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | aarch64: Remove ld.so __tls_get_addr plt usage | expand |
The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > Use the hidden alias instead. > > Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? > --- > sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S | 3 ++- > sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data | 2 -- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S b/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S > index 9b253b39dd..4febf2ad21 100644 > --- a/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S > +++ b/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S > @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic: > SAVE_Q_REGISTERS > > mov x0, x1 > - bl __tls_get_addr > + bl HIDDEN_JUMPTARGET(__tls_get_addr) > > mrs x1, tpidr_el0 > sub PTR_REG (0), PTR_REG (0), PTR_REG (1) > @@ -246,5 +246,6 @@ _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic: > b 1b > cfi_endproc > .size _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic, .-_dl_tlsdesc_dynamic > + .hidden HIDDEN_JUMPTARGET(__tls_get_addr) > # undef NSAVEXREGPAIRS > #endif > diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data > index 5d217cc50d..5dd07472df 100644 > --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data > +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data > @@ -9,5 +9,3 @@ libm.so: matherr > # If outline atomics are used, libgcc (built outside of glibc) may > # call __getauxval using the PLT. > libc.so: __getauxval ? > -# The dynamic loader needs __tls_get_addr for TLS. > -ld.so: __tls_get_addr > -- > 2.34.1 >
On 05/04/24 11:58, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: >> Use the hidden alias instead. >> >> Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. > > does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? > > Do we support symbol interposition for symbols in implementation namespace? If so, we will need to revert x86 to use the same semantic and document it properly. >> --- >> sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S | 3 ++- >> sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data | 2 -- >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S b/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S >> index 9b253b39dd..4febf2ad21 100644 >> --- a/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S >> +++ b/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S >> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic: >> SAVE_Q_REGISTERS >> >> mov x0, x1 >> - bl __tls_get_addr >> + bl HIDDEN_JUMPTARGET(__tls_get_addr) >> >> mrs x1, tpidr_el0 >> sub PTR_REG (0), PTR_REG (0), PTR_REG (1) >> @@ -246,5 +246,6 @@ _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic: >> b 1b >> cfi_endproc >> .size _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic, .-_dl_tlsdesc_dynamic >> + .hidden HIDDEN_JUMPTARGET(__tls_get_addr) >> # undef NSAVEXREGPAIRS >> #endif >> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data >> index 5d217cc50d..5dd07472df 100644 >> --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data >> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data >> @@ -9,5 +9,3 @@ libm.so: matherr >> # If outline atomics are used, libgcc (built outside of glibc) may >> # call __getauxval using the PLT. >> libc.so: __getauxval ? >> -# The dynamic loader needs __tls_get_addr for TLS. >> -ld.so: __tls_get_addr >> -- >> 2.34.1 >>
* Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> [2024-04-05 13:29:48 -0300]: > > > On 05/04/24 11:58, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > >> Use the hidden alias instead. > >> > >> Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. > > > > does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? > > > > > > Do we support symbol interposition for symbols in implementation namespace? > If so, we will need to revert x86 to use the same semantic and document it > properly. i suspect this will partially break the sanitizers and possibly other similar tools that hook internals so i hoped at least for better commit msg pointing out that this is deliberate behaviour change. > > >> --- > >> sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S | 3 ++- > >> sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data | 2 -- > >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S b/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S > >> index 9b253b39dd..4febf2ad21 100644 > >> --- a/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S > >> +++ b/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S > >> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic: > >> SAVE_Q_REGISTERS > >> > >> mov x0, x1 > >> - bl __tls_get_addr > >> + bl HIDDEN_JUMPTARGET(__tls_get_addr) > >> > >> mrs x1, tpidr_el0 > >> sub PTR_REG (0), PTR_REG (0), PTR_REG (1) > >> @@ -246,5 +246,6 @@ _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic: > >> b 1b > >> cfi_endproc > >> .size _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic, .-_dl_tlsdesc_dynamic > >> + .hidden HIDDEN_JUMPTARGET(__tls_get_addr) > >> # undef NSAVEXREGPAIRS > >> #endif > >> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data > >> index 5d217cc50d..5dd07472df 100644 > >> --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data > >> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data > >> @@ -9,5 +9,3 @@ libm.so: matherr > >> # If outline atomics are used, libgcc (built outside of glibc) may > >> # call __getauxval using the PLT. > >> libc.so: __getauxval ? > >> -# The dynamic loader needs __tls_get_addr for TLS. > >> -ld.so: __tls_get_addr > >> -- > >> 2.34.1 > >>
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 11:59 AM Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> wrote: > > The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > > Use the hidden alias instead. > > > > Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. > > does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? Wut ? is that really supported.. I mean.. isn't that symbol prefix reserved for the implementation and any assumption about it is either ID or UB?
The 04/07/2024 16:29, Cristian Rodríguez wrote: > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 11:59 AM Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> wrote: > > > > The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > > > Use the hidden alias instead. > > > > > > Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. > > > > does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? > > Wut ? is that really supported.. I mean.. isn't that symbol prefix > reserved for the implementation and any assumption about it is either > ID or UB? a behaviour can change even if it's not supported. i did not try to imply that it should be supported. i know sanitizers interpose __tls_get_addr, because https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16291 i don't know if that hack works at all now for tlsdesc (where the ld.so calls __tls_get_addr, not user code) my question was if we investigated this issue since it is useful to document then in the commit msg (or news entry if this affects users)
* Szabolcs Nagy: > * Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> [2024-04-05 13:29:48 -0300]: > >> >> >> On 05/04/24 11:58, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: >> > The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: >> >> Use the hidden alias instead. >> >> >> >> Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. >> > >> > does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? >> > >> > >> >> Do we support symbol interposition for symbols in implementation namespace? >> If so, we will need to revert x86 to use the same semantic and document it >> properly. > > i suspect this will partially break the sanitizers > and possibly other similar tools that hook internals > so i hoped at least for better commit msg pointing > out that this is deliberate behaviour change. There is a __tls_get_addr interceptor, but I'm not sure what it does, exactly. If the initial-exec optimization kicks in, this code path isn't even used. I think we should try if removing the indirect call helps. Thanks, Florian
On 08/04/24 04:26, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > The 04/07/2024 16:29, Cristian Rodríguez wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 11:59 AM Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> wrote: >>> >>> The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: >>>> Use the hidden alias instead. >>>> >>>> Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. >>> >>> does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? >> >> Wut ? is that really supported.. I mean.. isn't that symbol prefix >> reserved for the implementation and any assumption about it is either >> ID or UB? > > a behaviour can change even if it's not supported. > i did not try to imply that it should be supported. > > i know sanitizers interpose __tls_get_addr, because > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16291 > i don't know if that hack works at all now for tlsdesc > (where the ld.so calls __tls_get_addr, not user code) > > my question was if we investigated this issue since it > is useful to document then in the commit msg (or news > entry if this affects users) This change 'breaks' the sanitizer trick to get the dynamic TLS, with this patch I now see: MemorySanitizer-AARCH64 :: dtls_test.c SanitizerCommon-asan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp SanitizerCommon-msan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp SanitizerCommon-tsan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp And it does not fail on x86 only because it uses -mtls=gnu as default (the same tests fail on x86 with -mtls=gnu2). Now that GCC and distributions are aiming to use GNU2/DESC as the default TLS, this hack will also break on x86. So the question is whether we revert 050f7298e1ecc39887c329037575ccd972071255 and document that __tls_get_addr should be interposable, or move with this change and try to come up with a possible solution for BZ#16291. I bringing this because we will have another two ABIs with tlsdesc support (loongarch and riscv).
The 04/08/2024 13:57, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: > On 08/04/24 04:26, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > The 04/07/2024 16:29, Cristian Rodríguez wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 11:59 AM Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> wrote: > >>> The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > >>>> Use the hidden alias instead. > >>>> > >>>> Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. > >>> > >>> does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? > >> > >> Wut ? is that really supported.. I mean.. isn't that symbol prefix > >> reserved for the implementation and any assumption about it is either > >> ID or UB? > > > > a behaviour can change even if it's not supported. > > i did not try to imply that it should be supported. > > > > i know sanitizers interpose __tls_get_addr, because > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16291 > > i don't know if that hack works at all now for tlsdesc > > (where the ld.so calls __tls_get_addr, not user code) > > > > my question was if we investigated this issue since it > > is useful to document then in the commit msg (or news > > entry if this affects users) > > This change 'breaks' the sanitizer trick to get the dynamic TLS, with > this patch I now see: > > MemorySanitizer-AARCH64 :: dtls_test.c > SanitizerCommon-asan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > SanitizerCommon-msan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > SanitizerCommon-tsan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > > And it does not fail on x86 only because it uses -mtls=gnu as default > (the same tests fail on x86 with -mtls=gnu2). > > Now that GCC and distributions are aiming to use GNU2/DESC as the > default TLS, this hack will also break on x86. So the question is > whether we revert 050f7298e1ecc39887c329037575ccd972071255 and > document that __tls_get_addr should be interposable, or move with this > change and try to come up with a possible solution for BZ#16291. > > I bringing this because we will have another two ABIs with tlsdesc > support (loongarch and riscv). adding some sanitizer committers to cc. tl;dr: in the next glibc release tlsdesc will not call __tls_get_addr in an interposable way in the dynamic tls allocation case, unless somebody screems that this is needed. (affects targets that may default to tlsdesc, but note that the dynamic case only triggers with tlsdesc when a lot of dlopened tls is used, otherwise static tls area is used) i think it is also possible that we will use custom malloc in ld.so which may be just as big change for the sanitizers. (this can make tls access signal safe) i'm not against the change, but if we plan to add several interposable hooks as in https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ThreadPropertiesAPI then we might as well keep __tls_get_addr PLT for now.
On 09/04/24 05:30, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > The 04/08/2024 13:57, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: >> On 08/04/24 04:26, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: >>> The 04/07/2024 16:29, Cristian Rodríguez wrote: >>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 11:59 AM Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> wrote: >>>>> The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: >>>>>> Use the hidden alias instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. >>>>> >>>>> does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? >>>> >>>> Wut ? is that really supported.. I mean.. isn't that symbol prefix >>>> reserved for the implementation and any assumption about it is either >>>> ID or UB? >>> >>> a behaviour can change even if it's not supported. >>> i did not try to imply that it should be supported. >>> >>> i know sanitizers interpose __tls_get_addr, because >>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16291 >>> i don't know if that hack works at all now for tlsdesc >>> (where the ld.so calls __tls_get_addr, not user code) >>> >>> my question was if we investigated this issue since it >>> is useful to document then in the commit msg (or news >>> entry if this affects users) >> >> This change 'breaks' the sanitizer trick to get the dynamic TLS, with >> this patch I now see: >> >> MemorySanitizer-AARCH64 :: dtls_test.c >> SanitizerCommon-asan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp >> SanitizerCommon-msan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp >> SanitizerCommon-tsan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp >> >> And it does not fail on x86 only because it uses -mtls=gnu as default >> (the same tests fail on x86 with -mtls=gnu2). >> >> Now that GCC and distributions are aiming to use GNU2/DESC as the >> default TLS, this hack will also break on x86. So the question is >> whether we revert 050f7298e1ecc39887c329037575ccd972071255 and >> document that __tls_get_addr should be interposable, or move with this >> change and try to come up with a possible solution for BZ#16291. >> >> I bringing this because we will have another two ABIs with tlsdesc >> support (loongarch and riscv). > > adding some sanitizer committers to cc. > > tl;dr: in the next glibc release tlsdesc will not call > __tls_get_addr in an interposable way in the dynamic tls > allocation case, unless somebody screems that this is needed. > (affects targets that may default to tlsdesc, but note that > the dynamic case only triggers with tlsdesc when a lot of > dlopened tls is used, otherwise static tls area is used) Just a note that this already true for x86 with -mtls=gnu2 since 2.21. And now that distro are aiming to make it default, this issues will happen more often. > > i think it is also possible that we will use custom malloc > in ld.so which may be just as big change for the sanitizers. > (this can make tls access signal safe) > > i'm not against the change, but if we plan to add several > interposable hooks as in > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ThreadPropertiesAPI > then we might as well keep __tls_get_addr PLT for now. > I don't have a strong opinion, but what I really want is to have consistency over the architectures. Meaning that if we want to keep the __tls_get_addr PLT for sanitizer/runtime hooks, it would be good to revert the x86 change. It also means to document it properly somewhere and make the new RISC-V and loongarch follow the same guidelines. I will take a look again on the ThreadPropertiesAPI, since it is has been more and more a demanding issue.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:03 AM Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On 09/04/24 05:30, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > The 04/08/2024 13:57, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: > >> On 08/04/24 04:26, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > >>> The 04/07/2024 16:29, Cristian Rodríguez wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 11:59 AM Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> wrote: > >>>>> The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > >>>>>> Use the hidden alias instead. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. > >>>>> > >>>>> does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? > >>>> > >>>> Wut ? is that really supported.. I mean.. isn't that symbol prefix > >>>> reserved for the implementation and any assumption about it is either > >>>> ID or UB? > >>> > >>> a behaviour can change even if it's not supported. > >>> i did not try to imply that it should be supported. > >>> > >>> i know sanitizers interpose __tls_get_addr, because > >>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16291 > >>> i don't know if that hack works at all now for tlsdesc > >>> (where the ld.so calls __tls_get_addr, not user code) > >>> > >>> my question was if we investigated this issue since it > >>> is useful to document then in the commit msg (or news > >>> entry if this affects users) > >> > >> This change 'breaks' the sanitizer trick to get the dynamic TLS, with > >> this patch I now see: > >> > >> MemorySanitizer-AARCH64 :: dtls_test.c > >> SanitizerCommon-asan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > >> SanitizerCommon-msan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > >> SanitizerCommon-tsan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > >> > >> And it does not fail on x86 only because it uses -mtls=gnu as default > >> (the same tests fail on x86 with -mtls=gnu2). > >> > >> Now that GCC and distributions are aiming to use GNU2/DESC as the > >> default TLS, this hack will also break on x86. So the question is > >> whether we revert 050f7298e1ecc39887c329037575ccd972071255 and > >> document that __tls_get_addr should be interposable, or move with this > >> change and try to come up with a possible solution for BZ#16291. > >> > >> I bringing this because we will have another two ABIs with tlsdesc > >> support (loongarch and riscv). > > > > adding some sanitizer committers to cc. > > > > tl;dr: in the next glibc release tlsdesc will not call > > __tls_get_addr in an interposable way in the dynamic tls > > allocation case, unless somebody screems that this is needed. > > (affects targets that may default to tlsdesc, but note that > > the dynamic case only triggers with tlsdesc when a lot of > > dlopened tls is used, otherwise static tls area is used) > > Just a note that this already true for x86 with -mtls=gnu2 since > 2.21. And now that distro are aiming to make it default, this issues > will happen more often. > > > > > i think it is also possible that we will use custom malloc > > in ld.so which may be just as big change for the sanitizers. > > (this can make tls access signal safe) > > > > i'm not against the change, but if we plan to add several > > interposable hooks as in > > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ThreadPropertiesAPI > > then we might as well keep __tls_get_addr PLT for now. > > > > I don't have a strong opinion, but what I really want is to have > consistency over the architectures. Meaning that if we want to keep > the __tls_get_addr PLT for sanitizer/runtime hooks, it would be good > to revert the x86 change. We need to add gnu2 tests to libsanitizer when making the x86 change. > It also means to document it properly somewhere and make the new > RISC-V and loongarch follow the same guidelines. > > I will take a look again on the ThreadPropertiesAPI, since it is has > been more and more a demanding issue.
On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 07:03:45 PDT (-0700), adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org wrote: > > > On 09/04/24 05:30, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: >> The 04/08/2024 13:57, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: >>> On 08/04/24 04:26, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: >>>> The 04/07/2024 16:29, Cristian Rodríguez wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 11:59 AM Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> wrote: >>>>>> The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: >>>>>>> Use the hidden alias instead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. >>>>>> >>>>>> does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? >>>>> >>>>> Wut ? is that really supported.. I mean.. isn't that symbol prefix >>>>> reserved for the implementation and any assumption about it is either >>>>> ID or UB? >>>> >>>> a behaviour can change even if it's not supported. >>>> i did not try to imply that it should be supported. >>>> >>>> i know sanitizers interpose __tls_get_addr, because >>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16291 >>>> i don't know if that hack works at all now for tlsdesc >>>> (where the ld.so calls __tls_get_addr, not user code) >>>> >>>> my question was if we investigated this issue since it >>>> is useful to document then in the commit msg (or news >>>> entry if this affects users) >>> >>> This change 'breaks' the sanitizer trick to get the dynamic TLS, with >>> this patch I now see: >>> >>> MemorySanitizer-AARCH64 :: dtls_test.c >>> SanitizerCommon-asan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp >>> SanitizerCommon-msan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp >>> SanitizerCommon-tsan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp >>> >>> And it does not fail on x86 only because it uses -mtls=gnu as default >>> (the same tests fail on x86 with -mtls=gnu2). >>> >>> Now that GCC and distributions are aiming to use GNU2/DESC as the >>> default TLS, this hack will also break on x86. So the question is >>> whether we revert 050f7298e1ecc39887c329037575ccd972071255 and >>> document that __tls_get_addr should be interposable, or move with this >>> change and try to come up with a possible solution for BZ#16291. >>> >>> I bringing this because we will have another two ABIs with tlsdesc >>> support (loongarch and riscv). >> >> adding some sanitizer committers to cc. >> >> tl;dr: in the next glibc release tlsdesc will not call >> __tls_get_addr in an interposable way in the dynamic tls >> allocation case, unless somebody screems that this is needed. >> (affects targets that may default to tlsdesc, but note that >> the dynamic case only triggers with tlsdesc when a lot of >> dlopened tls is used, otherwise static tls area is used) > > Just a note that this already true for x86 with -mtls=gnu2 since > 2.21. And now that distro are aiming to make it default, this issues > will happen more often. > >> >> i think it is also possible that we will use custom malloc >> in ld.so which may be just as big change for the sanitizers. >> (this can make tls access signal safe) >> >> i'm not against the change, but if we plan to add several >> interposable hooks as in >> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ThreadPropertiesAPI >> then we might as well keep __tls_get_addr PLT for now. >> > > I don't have a strong opinion, but what I really want is to have > consistency over the architectures. Meaning that if we want to keep > the __tls_get_addr PLT for sanitizer/runtime hooks, it would be good > to revert the x86 change. > > It also means to document it properly somewhere and make the new > RISC-V and loongarch follow the same guidelines. I also don't have a strong opinion on whether __tls_get_addr should be interposable, but I'm happy to try and make the RISC-V port match arm64/x86. I guess we're kind of safe for now as we don't have TLSDESC merged, though I think we were getting pretty close there so we should probbaly decide before we accidentally commit to an ABI. > I will take a look again on the ThreadPropertiesAPI, since it is has > been more and more a demanding issue.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:11 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 07:03:45 PDT (-0700), adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org wrote: > > > > > > On 09/04/24 05:30, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > >> The 04/08/2024 13:57, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: > >>> On 08/04/24 04:26, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > >>>> The 04/07/2024 16:29, Cristian Rodríguez wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 11:59 AM Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> wrote: > >>>>>> The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > >>>>>>> Use the hidden alias instead. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? > >>>>> > >>>>> Wut ? is that really supported.. I mean.. isn't that symbol prefix > >>>>> reserved for the implementation and any assumption about it is either > >>>>> ID or UB? > >>>> > >>>> a behaviour can change even if it's not supported. > >>>> i did not try to imply that it should be supported. > >>>> > >>>> i know sanitizers interpose __tls_get_addr, because > >>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16291 > >>>> i don't know if that hack works at all now for tlsdesc > >>>> (where the ld.so calls __tls_get_addr, not user code) > >>>> > >>>> my question was if we investigated this issue since it > >>>> is useful to document then in the commit msg (or news > >>>> entry if this affects users) > >>> > >>> This change 'breaks' the sanitizer trick to get the dynamic TLS, with > >>> this patch I now see: > >>> > >>> MemorySanitizer-AARCH64 :: dtls_test.c > >>> SanitizerCommon-asan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > >>> SanitizerCommon-msan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > >>> SanitizerCommon-tsan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > >>> > >>> And it does not fail on x86 only because it uses -mtls=gnu as default > >>> (the same tests fail on x86 with -mtls=gnu2). > >>> > >>> Now that GCC and distributions are aiming to use GNU2/DESC as the > >>> default TLS, this hack will also break on x86. So the question is > >>> whether we revert 050f7298e1ecc39887c329037575ccd972071255 and > >>> document that __tls_get_addr should be interposable, or move with this > >>> change and try to come up with a possible solution for BZ#16291. > >>> > >>> I bringing this because we will have another two ABIs with tlsdesc > >>> support (loongarch and riscv). > >> > >> adding some sanitizer committers to cc. > >> > >> tl;dr: in the next glibc release tlsdesc will not call > >> __tls_get_addr in an interposable way in the dynamic tls > >> allocation case, unless somebody screems that this is needed. > >> (affects targets that may default to tlsdesc, but note that > >> the dynamic case only triggers with tlsdesc when a lot of > >> dlopened tls is used, otherwise static tls area is used) > > > > Just a note that this already true for x86 with -mtls=gnu2 since > > 2.21. And now that distro are aiming to make it default, this issues > > will happen more often. > > > >> > >> i think it is also possible that we will use custom malloc > >> in ld.so which may be just as big change for the sanitizers. > >> (this can make tls access signal safe) > >> > >> i'm not against the change, but if we plan to add several > >> interposable hooks as in > >> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ThreadPropertiesAPI > >> then we might as well keep __tls_get_addr PLT for now. > >> > > > > I don't have a strong opinion, but what I really want is to have > > consistency over the architectures. Meaning that if we want to keep > > the __tls_get_addr PLT for sanitizer/runtime hooks, it would be good > > to revert the x86 change. > > > > It also means to document it properly somewhere and make the new > > RISC-V and loongarch follow the same guidelines. > > I also don't have a strong opinion on whether __tls_get_addr should be > interposable, but I'm happy to try and make the RISC-V port match > arm64/x86. I guess we're kind of safe for now as we don't have TLSDESC > merged, though I think we were getting pretty close there so we should > probbaly decide before we accidentally commit to an ABI. > > > I will take a look again on the ThreadPropertiesAPI, since it is has > > been more and more a demanding issue. We should add a __tls_get_addr glibc test if we decide it should be called via PLT.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:03 AM Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On 09/04/24 05:30, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > The 04/08/2024 13:57, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: > >> On 08/04/24 04:26, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > >>> The 04/07/2024 16:29, Cristian Rodríguez wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 11:59 AM Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com> wrote: > >>>>> The 04/05/2024 09:35, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > >>>>>> Use the hidden alias instead. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Checked on aarch64-linux-gnu. > >>>>> > >>>>> does this change behaviour in case __tls_get_addr is interposed? > >>>> > >>>> Wut ? is that really supported.. I mean.. isn't that symbol prefix > >>>> reserved for the implementation and any assumption about it is either > >>>> ID or UB? > >>> > >>> a behaviour can change even if it's not supported. > >>> i did not try to imply that it should be supported. > >>> > >>> i know sanitizers interpose __tls_get_addr, because > >>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16291 > >>> i don't know if that hack works at all now for tlsdesc > >>> (where the ld.so calls __tls_get_addr, not user code) > >>> > >>> my question was if we investigated this issue since it > >>> is useful to document then in the commit msg (or news > >>> entry if this affects users) > >> > >> This change 'breaks' the sanitizer trick to get the dynamic TLS, with > >> this patch I now see: > >> > >> MemorySanitizer-AARCH64 :: dtls_test.c > >> SanitizerCommon-asan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > >> SanitizerCommon-msan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > >> SanitizerCommon-tsan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > >> > >> And it does not fail on x86 only because it uses -mtls=gnu as default > >> (the same tests fail on x86 with -mtls=gnu2). > >> > >> Now that GCC and distributions are aiming to use GNU2/DESC as the > >> default TLS, this hack will also break on x86. So the question is > >> whether we revert 050f7298e1ecc39887c329037575ccd972071255 and > >> document that __tls_get_addr should be interposable, or move with this > >> change and try to come up with a possible solution for BZ#16291. > >> > >> I bringing this because we will have another two ABIs with tlsdesc > >> support (loongarch and riscv). Last time I analyzed the __tls_get_addr interceptor in sanitizers, I have made quite some notes at https://maskray.me/blog/2021-02-14-all-about-thread-local-storage#why-does-compiler-rt-need-to-know-tls-blocks Yes, an interceptor is needed. > msan needs to do more than asan: the __tls_get_addr interceptor (DTLS_on_tls_get_addr) detects new dynamic TLS blocks and unpoisons the shadow. ld.so calls a non-interposable memset to clear the blocks. Otherwise, if a dynamic TLS block reuses a previous allocation with poison, there may be false positives. One way to semi reliably trigger this is (test/msan/dtls_test.cpp https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/547): in a thread, write an uninitialized (poisoned) value to a dynamic TLS block destroy the thread create a new thread try making the new thread reuse the poisoned dynamic TLS block. Note: aarch64 uses TLSDESC by default and there is no interposable symbol. --- Current TLSDESC implementations not providing an interposable symbol is indeed an issue, but I haven't carefully analyzed it on an aarch64 machine. > > adding some sanitizer committers to cc. > > > > tl;dr: in the next glibc release tlsdesc will not call > > __tls_get_addr in an interposable way in the dynamic tls > > allocation case, unless somebody screems that this is needed. > > (affects targets that may default to tlsdesc, but note that > > the dynamic case only triggers with tlsdesc when a lot of > > dlopened tls is used, otherwise static tls area is used) > > Just a note that this already true for x86 with -mtls=gnu2 since > 2.21. And now that distro are aiming to make it default, this issues > will happen more often. Yes. > > i think it is also possible that we will use custom malloc > > in ld.so which may be just as big change for the sanitizers. > > (this can make tls access signal safe) > > > > i'm not against the change, but if we plan to add several > > interposable hooks as in > > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ThreadPropertiesAPI > > then we might as well keep __tls_get_addr PLT for now. > > > > I don't have a strong opinion, but what I really want is to have > consistency over the architectures. Meaning that if we want to keep > the __tls_get_addr PLT for sanitizer/runtime hooks, it would be good > to revert the x86 change. > > It also means to document it properly somewhere and make the new > RISC-V and loongarch follow the same guidelines. > > I will take a look again on the ThreadPropertiesAPI, since it is has > been more and more a demanding issue. Thanks!
The 04/09/2024 10:50, Fangrui Song wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:03 AM Adhemerval Zanella Netto > <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 09/04/24 05:30, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > > The 04/08/2024 13:57, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: > > >> On 08/04/24 04:26, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > >>> i know sanitizers interpose __tls_get_addr, because > > >>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16291 > > >>> i don't know if that hack works at all now for tlsdesc > > >>> (where the ld.so calls __tls_get_addr, not user code) > > >>> > > >>> my question was if we investigated this issue since it > > >>> is useful to document then in the commit msg (or news > > >>> entry if this affects users) > > >> > > >> This change 'breaks' the sanitizer trick to get the dynamic TLS, with > > >> this patch I now see: > > >> > > >> MemorySanitizer-AARCH64 :: dtls_test.c > > >> SanitizerCommon-asan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > > >> SanitizerCommon-msan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > > >> SanitizerCommon-tsan-aarch64-Linux :: Linux/resize_tls_dynamic.cpp > > >> > > >> And it does not fail on x86 only because it uses -mtls=gnu as default > > >> (the same tests fail on x86 with -mtls=gnu2). > > >> > > >> Now that GCC and distributions are aiming to use GNU2/DESC as the > > >> default TLS, this hack will also break on x86. So the question is > > >> whether we revert 050f7298e1ecc39887c329037575ccd972071255 and > > >> document that __tls_get_addr should be interposable, or move with this > > >> change and try to come up with a possible solution for BZ#16291. > > >> > > >> I bringing this because we will have another two ABIs with tlsdesc > > >> support (loongarch and riscv). > > Last time I analyzed the __tls_get_addr interceptor in sanitizers, I > have made quite some notes at > https://maskray.me/blog/2021-02-14-all-about-thread-local-storage#why-does-compiler-rt-need-to-know-tls-blocks says > Note: aarch64 uses TLSDESC by default and there is no interposable symbol. not quite true: the tlsdesc call cannot be interposed, but then ld.so internally calls __tls_get_addr via a PLT that can be. (only for first time dynamic tls setup, but that's enough to get dynamic tls boundaries) you need another way to detect the static tls area, but that's true for non-tlsdesc too. > Current TLSDESC implementations not providing an interposable symbol > is indeed an issue, but I haven't carefully analyzed it on an aarch64 > machine. we are planning to remove the interposable symbol in the next glibc version, so the current __tls_get_addr trick won't work for x86_64, aarch64, loongarch, riscv.
* Fangrui Song: > Last time I analyzed the __tls_get_addr interceptor in sanitizers, I > have made quite some notes at > https://maskray.me/blog/2021-02-14-all-about-thread-local-storage#why-does-compiler-rt-need-to-know-tls-blocks > > Yes, an interceptor is needed. There's no guarantuee that TLS access goes through a regular function call, so any design that relies on such a call happening is fundamentally broken. Quoting from your article: | Note: if the allocation is rtld/libc internal and not intercepted, | there is no need to unpoison the range. The associated shadow is | supposed to be zeros. However, if the allocation is intercepted, the | runtime should unpoison the range in case the range reuses a previous | allocation which happens to contain poisoned bytes. | | In glibc, _dl_allocate_tls and _dl_deallocate_tls call malloc/free | functions which are internal and not intercepted, so the allocations | are opaque to the runtime and the shadow bytes are all zeroes. I don't think this is accurate. We call the application malloc/free for non-main threads after initialization. Having an accurate description of sanitizer needs in this area would be really helpful, but I think we are not quite there yet. (This is different from an API description.) I think there are several aspects here: (a) Avoid false errors for bounds checks for Address Sanitizer. (b) Support pointer discovery for Leak Sanitizer (essentially conservative garbage collection). (c) Avoid false data race reports for Thread Sanitizer after TLS reuse from one thread for a different thread (only with non-overlapping lifetimes). Based on your description, I'm not sure if (a) is actually a problem. If we don't use application malloc for TLS allocations, bounds checking is bypassed apparently? And if we use malloc, out-of-bounds accesses would be actual bugs. Aspect (b) is a real issue. Could we address that by allocating the TCB (with static TLS) and all dynamic TLS with application malloc (or rather, memalign/aligned_alloc), and keep a pointer to the allocation on the thread stack? Then a conservative collector could find it, and scan it for pointers. A gap remains for the main thread, whose TCB is not allocated using application malloc—and can't be, as the application malloc itself very likely depends on the TCB already being there. We could switch TCBs after allocating another one with malloc, but that would require some hand-off protocol, I believe. Maybe it's better to register early allocations with the sanitizer directly, using some appropriate API. For (c), we could just stop caching TCBs after thread exit. If we call free, and reallocate for the new thread, that should avoid the false data race. This issue does not affect the main thread. Based on that, I don't think we need to support discovery of TLS areas, or export any other internal implementation details. We just need to use more malloc within glibc if we detect an active sanitizer, and find a way to make the TCB allocation of the main thread known to the sanitizer. Thanks, Florian
bionic implemented https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ThreadPropertiesAPI in https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/refs/heads/main/libc/include/sys/thread_properties.h but tbh i'm not sure that the sanitizer folks moved over to the new api? (i don't think we could just use malloc() because jemalloc -- which we still haven't fully removed for very low-end users in favor of scudo -- was itself using TLS thread locals? scudo has its own reserved constant slot in bionic, so that should be fine, i think, but we're not there yet.) On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 1:24 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: > > * Fangrui Song: > > > Last time I analyzed the __tls_get_addr interceptor in sanitizers, I > > have made quite some notes at > > https://maskray.me/blog/2021-02-14-all-about-thread-local-storage#why-does-compiler-rt-need-to-know-tls-blocks > > > > Yes, an interceptor is needed. > > There's no guarantuee that TLS access goes through a regular function > call, so any design that relies on such a call happening is > fundamentally broken. > > Quoting from your article: > > | Note: if the allocation is rtld/libc internal and not intercepted, > | there is no need to unpoison the range. The associated shadow is > | supposed to be zeros. However, if the allocation is intercepted, the > | runtime should unpoison the range in case the range reuses a previous > | allocation which happens to contain poisoned bytes. > | > | In glibc, _dl_allocate_tls and _dl_deallocate_tls call malloc/free > | functions which are internal and not intercepted, so the allocations > | are opaque to the runtime and the shadow bytes are all zeroes. > > I don't think this is accurate. We call the application malloc/free for > non-main threads after initialization. > > Having an accurate description of sanitizer needs in this area would be > really helpful, but I think we are not quite there yet. (This is > different from an API description.) > > I think there are several aspects here: > > (a) Avoid false errors for bounds checks for Address Sanitizer. > > (b) Support pointer discovery for Leak Sanitizer (essentially conservative > garbage collection). > > (c) Avoid false data race reports for Thread Sanitizer after TLS reuse > from one thread for a different thread (only with non-overlapping > lifetimes). > > Based on your description, I'm not sure if (a) is actually a problem. > If we don't use application malloc for TLS allocations, bounds checking > is bypassed apparently? And if we use malloc, out-of-bounds accesses > would be actual bugs. > > Aspect (b) is a real issue. Could we address that by allocating the TCB > (with static TLS) and all dynamic TLS with application malloc (or > rather, memalign/aligned_alloc), and keep a pointer to the allocation on > the thread stack? Then a conservative collector could find it, and scan > it for pointers. A gap remains for the main thread, whose TCB is not > allocated using application malloc—and can't be, as the application > malloc itself very likely depends on the TCB already being there. We > could switch TCBs after allocating another one with malloc, but that > would require some hand-off protocol, I believe. Maybe it's better to > register early allocations with the sanitizer directly, using some > appropriate API. > > For (c), we could just stop caching TCBs after thread exit. If we call > free, and reallocate for the new thread, that should avoid the false > data race. This issue does not affect the main thread. > > Based on that, I don't think we need to support discovery of TLS areas, > or export any other internal implementation details. We just need to > use more malloc within glibc if we detect an active sanitizer, and find > a way to make the TCB allocation of the main thread known to the > sanitizer. > > Thanks, > Florian >
> bionic implemented > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ThreadPropertiesAPI in > https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/refs/heads/main/libc/include/sys/thread_properties.h > but tbh i'm not sure that the sanitizer folks moved over to the new > api? I think I wrote about this before: The APIs are underspecified. I think we want to be able to change the boundaries of static TLS eventually (allocating more backing storage before the start or the end, using address space that previously was only reserved with PROT_NONE). Maybe I should put it into the wiki page. > (i don't think we could just use malloc() because jemalloc -- which we > still haven't fully removed for very low-end users in favor of scudo > -- was itself using TLS thread locals? scudo has its own reserved > constant slot in bionic, so that should be fine, i think, but we're > not there yet.) Yes, that's the TCB bootstrap problem I mentioned. It's only relevant to the initial thread. There is no functional requirement to allocate TCBs directly on the thread they are used for. So once we solve the TCB issue for the main thread (and have a mode that uses malloc otherwise), I think we are done. Thanks, Florian
On 10/04/24 05:23, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Fangrui Song: > >> Last time I analyzed the __tls_get_addr interceptor in sanitizers, I >> have made quite some notes at >> https://maskray.me/blog/2021-02-14-all-about-thread-local-storage#why-does-compiler-rt-need-to-know-tls-blocks >> >> Yes, an interceptor is needed. > > There's no guarantuee that TLS access goes through a regular function > call, so any design that relies on such a call happening is > fundamentally broken. > > Quoting from your article: > > | Note: if the allocation is rtld/libc internal and not intercepted, > | there is no need to unpoison the range. The associated shadow is > | supposed to be zeros. However, if the allocation is intercepted, the > | runtime should unpoison the range in case the range reuses a previous > | allocation which happens to contain poisoned bytes. > | > | In glibc, _dl_allocate_tls and _dl_deallocate_tls call malloc/free > | functions which are internal and not intercepted, so the allocations > | are opaque to the runtime and the shadow bytes are all zeroes. > > I don't think this is accurate. We call the application malloc/free for > non-main threads after initialization. > > Having an accurate description of sanitizer needs in this area would be > really helpful, but I think we are not quite there yet. (This is > different from an API description.) > > I think there are several aspects here: > > (a) Avoid false errors for bounds checks for Address Sanitizer. > > (b) Support pointer discovery for Leak Sanitizer (essentially conservative > garbage collection). > > (c) Avoid false data race reports for Thread Sanitizer after TLS reuse > from one thread for a different thread (only with non-overlapping > lifetimes). > > Based on your description, I'm not sure if (a) is actually a problem. > If we don't use application malloc for TLS allocations, bounds checking > is bypassed apparently? And if we use malloc, out-of-bounds accesses > would be actual bugs. > > Aspect (b) is a real issue. Could we address that by allocating the TCB > (with static TLS) and all dynamic TLS with application malloc (or > rather, memalign/aligned_alloc), and keep a pointer to the allocation on > the thread stack? Then a conservative collector could find it, and scan > it for pointers. A gap remains for the main thread, whose TCB is not > allocated using application malloc—and can't be, as the application > malloc itself very likely depends on the TCB already being there. We > could switch TCBs after allocating another one with malloc, but that > would require some hand-off protocol, I believe. Maybe it's better to > register early allocations with the sanitizer directly, using some > appropriate API. Using malloc will also improve TCB hardening [1], so I think it would be valuable to implement regardless of sanitizer work. > > For (c), we could just stop caching TCBs after thread exit. If we call > free, and reallocate for the new thread, that should avoid the false > data race. This issue does not affect the main thread. We already have a tunable, glibc.pthread.stack_cache_size, which controls the thread cached size and setting to 0 should disable it. I do not think API to dynamically change tunables is a good approach (we might have potential issues to adapt the code to a dynamic value), so maybe an option would be to have interposable symbol programs could implement that can override the tunable values at programs startup. > > Based on that, I don't think we need to support discovery of TLS areas, > or export any other internal implementation details. We just need to > use more malloc within glibc if we detect an active sanitizer, and find > a way to make the TCB allocation of the main thread known to the > sanitizer. > > Thanks, > Florian > [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22850
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 7:41 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: > > > bionic implemented > > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ThreadPropertiesAPI in > > https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/refs/heads/main/libc/include/sys/thread_properties.h > > but tbh i'm not sure that the sanitizer folks moved over to the new > > api? > > I think I wrote about this before: The APIs are underspecified. I think > we want to be able to change the boundaries of static TLS eventually > (allocating more backing storage before the start or the end, using > address space that previously was only reserved with PROT_NONE). > > Maybe I should put it into the wiki page. TIL that the "tests" don't _build_, let alone pass. speaking of "underspecified", the implementation and tests for __libc_register_thread_exit_callback() disagree about whether or not the _main_ thread exiting should cause the callbacks to be run. (the implementation only calls them for pthread_create() threads, but the test creates no threads and expects the callbacks to have run.) given that there's no argument to the callback to identify _which_ thread exited, i'm not entirely sure how this was intended to be used anyway? is it useful to know "something exited"? (afaict no llvm sanitizer is using this.) > > (i don't think we could just use malloc() because jemalloc -- which we > > still haven't fully removed for very low-end users in favor of scudo > > -- was itself using TLS thread locals? scudo has its own reserved > > constant slot in bionic, so that should be fine, i think, but we're > > not there yet.) > > Yes, that's the TCB bootstrap problem I mentioned. It's only relevant > to the initial thread. There is no functional requirement to allocate > TCBs directly on the thread they are used for. So once we solve the TCB > issue for the main thread (and have a mode that uses malloc otherwise), > I think we are done. > > Thanks, > Florian >
On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 8:40 AM enh <enh@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 7:41 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > bionic implemented > > > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ThreadPropertiesAPI in > > > > https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/refs/heads/main/libc/include/sys/thread_properties.h > > > but tbh i'm not sure that the sanitizer folks moved over to the new > > > api? > > > > I think I wrote about this before: The APIs are underspecified. I think > > we want to be able to change the boundaries of static TLS eventually > > (allocating more backing storage before the start or the end, using > > address space that previously was only reserved with PROT_NONE). > > > > Maybe I should put it into the wiki page. > > TIL that the "tests" don't _build_, let alone pass. speaking of > "underspecified", the implementation and tests for > __libc_register_thread_exit_callback() disagree about whether or not > the _main_ thread exiting should cause the callbacks to be run. (the > implementation only calls them for pthread_create() threads, but the > test creates no threads and expects the callbacks to have run.) > > given that there's no argument to the callback to identify _which_ > thread exited, i'm not entirely sure how this was intended to be used > anyway? is it useful to know "something exited"? (afaict no llvm > sanitizer is using this.) > This was meant to allow tool metadata cleanup for when a secondary thread exits, replacing the ugly PTHREAD_DESTRUCTOR_ITERATIONS hack, with a guarantee that no instrumented code will run on that thread after. It looks like the compiler-rt side was never implemented. I think our primary interest in this API was always in the dynamic tls hooks. > > > (i don't think we could just use malloc() because jemalloc -- which we > > > still haven't fully removed for very low-end users in favor of scudo > > > -- was itself using TLS thread locals? scudo has its own reserved > > > constant slot in bionic, so that should be fine, i think, but we're > > > not there yet.) > > > > Yes, that's the TCB bootstrap problem I mentioned. It's only relevant > > to the initial thread. There is no functional requirement to allocate > > TCBs directly on the thread they are used for. So once we solve the TCB > > issue for the main thread (and have a mode that uses malloc otherwise), > > I think we are done. > > > > Thanks, > > Florian > > >
diff --git a/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S b/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S index 9b253b39dd..4febf2ad21 100644 --- a/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S +++ b/sysdeps/aarch64/dl-tlsdesc.S @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic: SAVE_Q_REGISTERS mov x0, x1 - bl __tls_get_addr + bl HIDDEN_JUMPTARGET(__tls_get_addr) mrs x1, tpidr_el0 sub PTR_REG (0), PTR_REG (0), PTR_REG (1) @@ -246,5 +246,6 @@ _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic: b 1b cfi_endproc .size _dl_tlsdesc_dynamic, .-_dl_tlsdesc_dynamic + .hidden HIDDEN_JUMPTARGET(__tls_get_addr) # undef NSAVEXREGPAIRS #endif diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data index 5d217cc50d..5dd07472df 100644 --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/localplt.data @@ -9,5 +9,3 @@ libm.so: matherr # If outline atomics are used, libgcc (built outside of glibc) may # call __getauxval using the PLT. libc.so: __getauxval ? -# The dynamic loader needs __tls_get_addr for TLS. -ld.so: __tls_get_addr