Fwd: use of %fs segment register in x86_64 with -fstack-check

Maxim Blinov maxim.blinov@embecosm.com
Tue Mar 3 18:43:00 GMT 2020


(Sorry, forgot to CC gdb ml)

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Maxim Blinov <maxim.blinov@embecosm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 18:37
Subject: Re: use of %fs segment register in x86_64 with -fstack-check
To: Ruslan Kabatsayev <b7.10110111@gmail.com>


Hi Ruslan, thankyou for your explanations. Unfortunately, I still
can't see the whole picture.

On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 16:51, Ruslan Kabatsayev <b7.10110111@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not quite. As noted at [1] this OR is to ensure that stack hasn't
> overflowed. This is the part added by -fstack-check (you can see it go
> away when you remove this option). See [2] for documentation.

I don't understand how the OR insns check that the stack hasn't overflowed.

>From [1], the author writes "it just inserts a NULL byte". What is
*it* in this context? I don't see anyone writing anything to the stack
in the assembly. Does linux do it on our behalf, and then the OR insns
check that those bytes are indeed NULL?

Furthermore, I can't see who uses the result of the OR operation. I'm
under the impression that there is some page fault magic happening
under the hood, but what is that magic? No insns after the ORs perform
any conditional jumps based on the ORs results that I can see
(although I am not very knowledgeable about x86_64 asm.) So I am still
confused.

I did read [2] before posting, but unfortunately I didn't find it very helpful.

I tried to step through each insn in my head to demonstrate where i dont get it:

0x555555554560 <main>           sub    $0x2f78,%rsp
Ok, whatever %rsp was, its now %rsp - 12152. Thats a lot more than
8000, but fine.
Lets call %rsp before we subtracted it "%original".

0x555555554567 <main+7>         orq    $0x0,0xf58(%rsp)
Ok, we OR with memory location %rsp + 3928. Taking into account the
previous offset, we're accessing %original + (3928 - 12152) which is
%original - 8224. So this is about 200 bytes after the stack array
ends. The instruction doesn't change the value at 0xf58(%rsp). My
understanding is that this instruction will fetch the quadword at
0xf58(%rsp), OR it with $0x0, and then store the result of that
computation back to the same address. How does this check that no
stack overflow has occurred?

0x555555554570 <main+16>        orq    $0x0,(%rsp)
We do it again, this time at %original - 12152 (the bottom of the
stack). Is this because we might span over two pages?

0x555555554575 <main+21>        add    $0x1020,%rsp
Now we set %rsp to be %original - 8024. So now we are actually
pointing to the stack byte just after the large array.

0x55555555457c <main+28>        mov    %rsp,%rdi
Now we save %rsp to %rdi, despite %rdi not being used anywhere... not
sure about this one.

0x55555555457f <main+31>        mov    %fs:0x28,%rax
Load the magic sentinel pattern, OK.

0x555555554588 <main+40>        mov    %rax,0x1f48(%rsp)
0x1f48 corresponds to %original - 16. So we are writing a sentinel
value to almost the start of the stack for this func.

0x555555554590 <main+48>        xor    %eax,%eax
0x555555554592 <main+50>        callq  0x5555555546d0 <foo>

Clear %eax for foo's return value and call foo.

0x555555554597 <main+55>        mov    0x1f48(%rsp),%rdx
0x55555555459f <main+63>        xor    %fs:0x28,%rdx
0x5555555545a8 <main+72>        jne    0x5555555545b4 <main+84>

Now we double-check that the sentinel value at %original - 16 is
exactly the same as it was before we called foo, and if it isn't, we
go to __stack_chk_fail. So, this protects us against the case where
foo trashed the start of our stack?

0x5555555545aa <main+74>        xor    %eax,%eax
0x5555555545ac <main+76>        add    $0x1f58,%rsp
0x5555555545b3 <main+83>        retq

Clear our own return value, cleanup the stack, and exit.

I just don't understand how the ORs are ensuring the stack hasn't overflowed.

> Right. But note that this is enabled not by -fstack-check, but rather
> by some of the -fstack-protector* options that are on by default on
> modern Linux distributions. You can confirm this by explicitly passing
> -fno-stack-protector and seeing this sentinel checking gone.

Ok, I see.

> The FS segment base points to the TLS. See [3] and links therein.
...
> It's the offset of stack_guard member of tcbhead_t. See the
> corresponding glibc source [4].

Got it, thankyou.

> [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/44670648/673852
> [2]: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Stack-Checking.html
> [3]: https://chao-tic.github.io/blog/2018/12/25/tls
> [4]: https://code.woboq.org/userspace/glibc/sysdeps/x86_64/nptl/tls.h.html#42
>
> Regards,
> Ruslan



More information about the Gdb mailing list