Video from Def Con 18

Defcon 18: Function hooking for OSX and Linux from Daniel Hückmann on Vimeo.

Slides

Function hooking for OSX and Linux

If you enjoy this article, subscribe (via RSS or e-mail) and follow me on twitter.

The intention of this post is to highlight a subtle GCC optimization bug that leads to slower and larger code being generated than would have been generated without the optimization flag.

UPDATED: Graphs are now 0 based on the y axis. Links in the tidbits section (below conclusion) for my ugly test harness and terminal session of the build of the test case in the bug report, objdump, and corresponding system information.

Hold the #gccfail tweets, son.

Everyone fucks up. The point of this post is not to rag on GCC. If writing a C compiler was easy then every asshole with a keyboard would write one for fun.

WARNING: THERE IS MATH, SCIENCE, AND GRAPHS BELOW.

Watch yourself.

The original bug report for -fomit-frame-pointer.

I stumbled across a bug report for GCC that was very interesting. It points out a very subtle bug that occurs when the -fomit-frame-pointer flag is passed to GCC. The bug report is for 32bit code, however after some testing I found that this bug also rears its head in 64bit code.

What is -fomit-frame-pointer supposed to do?

The -fomit-frame-pointer flag is intended to direct GCC to avoid saving and restoring the frame pointer (%ebp or %rbp). This is supposed to make function calls faster, since the function is doing less work each invocation. It should also make function code take fewer bytes since there are fewer instructions being executed.

A caveat of using -fomit-frame-pointer is that it may make debugging impossible on certain systems. To combat this on Linux, .debug_frame and .eh_frame sections are added to ELF binaries to assist in the stack unwinding process when the frame pointer is omitted.

What is the bug?

The bug is that when -fomit-frame-pointer is used, GCC erroneously uses the frame pointer register as a general purpose register when a different register could be used instead.

wat.

The amd64 and i386 ABIs^{1 2} specify a list of caller and callee saved registers.

• The frame pointer register is callee saved. That means that if a function is going to use the frame pointer register, it must save and restore the value in the register.
• The test case provided in the bug report shows that other caller saved registers were available for use.
• Had the function used a caller saved register instead, there would be no need for the additional save and restore instructions in the function.
• Removing those instructions would take fewer bytes and execute faster.

What are the consequences?

Let’s take a look at two potential pieces of code.

The first piece is the code that would be generated if -fomit-frame-pointer is not used:

test1:
        pushq %rbp       ; save frame pointer
        movq %rsp,%rbp   ; update frame pointer to the current stack pointer
           ; here is where your function would do work
        leave            ; restore the stack pointer and frame pointer
        ret              ; return

Size: 6 bytes.

The above assembly sequence uses the frame pointer.

Let’s take a look at the code that is generated by GCC when -fomit-frame-pointer is used:

        sub $0x8, %rsp    ; make room on the stack
        movq %rbp, (%rsp) ; store rbp on the stack
          ; here is where your function would modify and use %rbp as needed
        movq (%rsp), %rbp ; restore %rbp
        add $0x8, %rsp    ; get rid of the extra stack space
        ret               ; return

Size: 17 bytes.

The above assembly sequence is what is generated when GCC decides to use the frame pointer register as a general purpose register. Since it is callee saved, it must be saved before being modified and restored after being modified.

So -fomit-frame-pointer makes your binary fatter, but does it make it slower?

Only one way to find out: do science.

I built a simple (and very ugly) testing harness to test the above pieces of code to determine which piece of code is faster. Before we get into the benchmark results, I want to tell you why my benchmark is bullshit.

Yes, bullshit.

You see, it makes me sad when people post benchmarks and neglect to tell others why their benchmark may be inaccurate. So, lemme start the trend.

This benchmark is useless because:

• Reading the CPU cycle counter is unreliable (more on this below the conclusion). I also tracked wall clock time, too.
• I don’t have the ideal test environment. I ran this on bare metal hardware, and set the CPU affinity to keep the process pinned to a single CPU… BUT
• I could have done better if I had pinned init to CPU0 (thereby forcing all children of init to be pinned to CPU0 – remember child processes inherit the affinity mask). I would have then had an entire CPU for nothing but my benchmark.
• I could have done better if I forced the CPU running my benchmark program to not handle any IRQs.
• I only tested one version of GCC: (Debian 4.3.2-1.1) 4.3.2
• I could have taken more samples.

You can find more testing harness tidbits below the conclusion.

Benchmark Results

test 1 — Code sequence simulating using the frame pointer.
test 2 — Code sequence simulating using the frame pointer as a general purpose register.

64bit results

Using -fomit-frame-pointer is SLOWER (contrary to what you’d expect) than not using it!

	cycles test 1	cycles test 2	microsecs test 1	microsecs test 2
mean	3514422987.92	4559685515.66	1882707.27	2442663.94
median	3507007423.5	4562511684.5	1878721.5	2444171.5
max	3922780211	4672066854	2101457	2502869
min	3502194976	4327782795	1876113	2318452
std dev	31927179.5632	15449507.8196	17103.7755	8275.49788
variance	1.02E+15	238687291867021	292539135.936	68483865.11835

32bit results

Using -fomit-frame-pointer is FASTER (as it should be) than not using it! The binary is still fatter, though.

	cycles test 1	cycles test 2	microsecs test 1	microsecs test 2
mean	3502932799.49	3491263364.89	1876553.08	1870301.35
median	3501486586.5	3492013955.5	1875778	1870702.5
max	3905163528	3731985243	2092032	1999259
min	3500916510	3408834436	1875472	1826144
std dev	10066939.1113	7992367.6913	5393.0412	4281.5466
variance	101343263071403	63877941312996.4	29084893.2588	18331640.9459

Conclusion

• GCC is a really complex piece of software; this bug is very subtle and may have existed for a while.
• I’ve said this a few times, but knowing and understanding your system’s ABI is crucial for catching bugs like these.
• Math and science are cool now, much like computers. You should use both.

Thanks for reading and don’t forget to subscribe (via RSS or e-mail) and follow me on twitter.

Testing harness tidbits

Each run of the benchmark executes either test1 or test2 (from above) 500,000,000 times. I did around 2500 runs for each test function.

You can get the testing harness, a build script, and a test script here: http://gist.github.com/483524

You can look at the terminal session where I build the test from the original bug report on my system: http://gist.github.com/483494

The code I used to read the CPU cycle counter looks like this:

static __inline__ unsigned long long rdtsc(void)
{
  unsigned long hi = 0, lo = 0;
  __asm__ __volatile__ ("lfence\n\trdtsc" : "=a"(lo), "=d"(hi));
  return ( (unsigned long long)lo)|( ((unsigned long long)hi)<<32 );
}

The lfence instruction is a serializing instruction that ensures that all load instructions which were issued before the lfence instruction have been executed before proceeding. I did this to make sure that the cycle counter was being read after all operations in the test functions were executed.

The values returned by this function are misleading because CPU frequency may be scaled at any time. This is why I also measured wall clock time.

References

1. http://www.sco.com/developers/devspecs/abi386-4.pdf [↩]
2. http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf [↩]

Download as PDF (15mb)
Garbage Collection and the Ruby Heap

If you enjoy this article, subscribe (via RSS or e-mail) and follow me on twitter.

The intention of this post is to highlight some of the similarities and differences between ELF and Mach-O dynamic linking that I encountered while building memprof.

I hope to write more posts about similarities and differences in other aspects of Mach-O and ELF that I stumbled across to shed some light on what goes on down there and provide (in some cases) the only documentation.

Procedure Linkage Table

The procedure linkage table (PLT) is used to determine the absolute address of a function at runtime. Both Mach-O and ELF objects have PLTs that are generated at compile time. The initial table simply invokes the dynamic linker which finds the symbol you want. The way this works is very similar at a high level in ELF and Mach-O, but there are some implementation differences that I thought were worth mentioning.

Mach-O PLT arrangement

Mach-O objects have several different sections across different segments that are all involved to create a PLT entry for a specific symbol.

Consider the following assembly stub which calls out to the PLT entry for malloc:

# MACH-O calling a PLT entry (ELF is nearly identical)
0x000000010008c504 [str_new+52]:	callq  0x10009ebbc [dyld_stub_malloc]

The dyld_stub prefix is added by GDB to let the user know that the callq instruction is calling a PLT entry and not malloc itself. The address 0x10009ebbc is the first instruction of malloc‘s PLT entry in this Mach-O object. In Mach-O terminology, the instruction at 0x10009ebbc is called a symbol stub. Symbol stubs in Mach-O objects are found in the __TEXT segment in the __symbol_stub1 section.

Let’s examine some instructions at the symbol stub address above:

# MACH-O "symbol stubs" for malloc and other functions
0x10009ebbc [dyld_stub_malloc]:	  jmpq   *0x3ae46(%rip)        # 0x1000d9a08
0x10009ebc2 [dyld_stub_realloc]:  jmpq   *0x3ae48(%rip)        # 0x1000d9a10
0x10009ebc8 [dyld_stub_seekdir$INODE64]:	jmpq   *0x3ae4c(%rip)  # 0x1000d9a20
. . . .

Each Mach-O symbol stub is just a single jmpq instruction. That jmpq instruction either:

• Invokes the dynamic linker to find the symbol and transfer execution there

OR

• Transfers execution directly to the function.

via an entry in a table.

In the example above, GDB is telling us that the address of the table entry for malloc is 0x1000d9a08. This table entry is stored in a section called the __la_symbol_ptr within the __DATA segment.

Before malloc has been resolved, the address in that table entry points to a helper function which (eventually) invokes the dynamic linker to find malloc and fill in its address in the table entry.

Let’s take a look at what a few entries of the helper functions look like:

# MACH-O stub helpers
0x1000a08d4 [stub helpers+6986]:	pushq  $0x3b73
0x1000a08d9 [stub helpers+6991]:	jmpq   0x10009ed8a [stub helpers]
0x1000a08de [stub helpers+6996]:	pushq  $0x3b88
0x1000a08e3 [stub helpers+7001]:	jmpq   0x10009ed8a [stub helpers]
0x1000a08e8 [stub helpers+7006]:	pushq  $0x3b9e
0x1000a08ed [stub helpers+7011]:	jmpq   0x10009ed8a [stub helpers]
. . . . 

Each symbol that has a PLT entry has 2 instructions above; a pair of pushq and jmpq. This instruction sequence sets an ID for the desired function and then invokes the dynamic linker. The dynamic linker looks up this ID so it knows which function it should be looking for.

ELF PLT arrangement

ELF objects have the same mechanism, but organize each PLT entry into chunks instead of splicing them out across different sections. Let’s take a look at a PLT entry for malloc in an ELF object:

# ELF complete PLT entry for malloc
0x40f3d0 [malloc@plt]:	jmpq   *0x2c91fa(%rip)        # 0x6d85d0
0x40f3d6 [malloc@plt+6]:	pushq  $0x2f
0x40f3db [malloc@plt+11]:	jmpq   0x40f0d0
. . . .

Much like a Mach-O object, an ELF object uses a table entry to direct the flow of execution to either invoke the dynamic linker or transfer directly to the desired function if it has already been resolved.

Two differences to point out here:

1. ELF puts the entire PLT entry together in nicely named section called plt instead of splicing it out across multiple sections.
2. The table entries indirected through with the initial jmpq instruction are stored in a section named: .got.plt.

Both invoke an assembly trampoline…

Both Mach-O and ELF objects are set up to invoke the runtime dynamic linker. Both need an assembly trampoline to bridge the gap between the application and the linker. On 64bit Intel based systems, linkers in both systems must comply to the same Application Binary Interace (ABI).

Strangely enough, the two linkers have slightly different assembly trampolines even though they share the same calling convention^{1 2}.

Both trampolines ensure that the program stack is 16-byte aligned to comply with the amd64 ABI’s calling convention. Both trampolines also take care to save the “general purpose” caller-saved registers prior to invoking the dynamic link, but it turns out that the trampoline in Linux does not save or restore the SSE registers. It turns out that this “shouldn’t” matter, so long as glibc takes care not to use any of those registers in the dynamic linker. OSX takes a more conservative approach and saves and restores the SSE registers before and after calling out the dynamic linker.

I’ve included a snippet from the two trampolines below and some comments so you can see the differences up close.

Different trampolines for the same ABI

The OSX trampoline:

dyld_stub_binder:
  pushq   %rbp
  movq    %rsp,%rbp
  subq    $STACK_SIZE,%rsp  # at this point stack is 16-byte aligned because two meta-parameters where pushed
  movq    %rdi,RDI_SAVE(%rsp) # save registers that might be used as parameters
  movq    %rsi,RSI_SAVE(%rsp)
  movq    %rdx,RDX_SAVE(%rsp)
  movq    %rcx,RCX_SAVE(%rsp)
  movq    %r8,R8_SAVE(%rsp)
  movq    %r9,R9_SAVE(%rsp)
  movq    %rax,RAX_SAVE(%rsp)
  movdqa    %xmm0,XMMM0_SAVE(%rsp)
  movdqa    %xmm1,XMMM1_SAVE(%rsp)
  movdqa    %xmm2,XMMM2_SAVE(%rsp)
  movdqa    %xmm3,XMMM3_SAVE(%rsp)
  movdqa    %xmm4,XMMM4_SAVE(%rsp)
  movdqa    %xmm5,XMMM5_SAVE(%rsp)
  movdqa    %xmm6,XMMM6_SAVE(%rsp)
  movdqa    %xmm7,XMMM7_SAVE(%rsp)
  movq    MH_PARAM_BP(%rbp),%rdi  # call fastBindLazySymbol(loadercache, lazyinfo)
  movq    LP_PARAM_BP(%rbp),%rsi
  call    __Z21_dyld_fast_stub_entryPvl

The OSX trampoline saves all the caller saved registers as well as the the %xmm0 - %xmm7 registers prior to invoking the dynamic linker with that last call instruction. These registers are all restored after the call instruction, but I left that out for the sake of brevity.

The Linux trampoline:

  subq $56,%rsp 
  cfi_adjust_cfa_offset(72) # Incorporate PLT
  movq %rax,(%rsp)  # Preserve registers otherwise clobbered.
  movq %rcx, 8(%rsp)
  movq %rdx, 16(%rsp)
  movq %rsi, 24(%rsp)
  movq %rdi, 32(%rsp)
  movq %r8, 40(%rsp)
  movq %r9, 48(%rsp)
  movq 64(%rsp), %rsi # Copy args pushed by PLT in register.
  movq %rsi, %r11   # Multiply by 24
  addq %r11, %rsi
  addq %r11, %rsi
  shlq $3, %rsi
  movq 56(%rsp), %rdi # %rdi: link_map, %rsi: reloc_offset
  call _dl_fixup    # Call resolver.

The Linux trampoline doesn’t touch the SSE registers because it assumes that the dynamic linker will not modify them thus avoiding a save and restore.

Conclusion

• Tracing program execution from call site to the dynamic linker is pretty interesting and there is a lot to learn along the way.
• glibc not saving and restoring %xmm0-%xmm7 kind of scares me, but there is a unit test included that disassembles the built ld.so searching it to make sure that those registers are never touched. It is still a bit frightening.
• Stay tuned for more posts explaining other interesting similarities and differences between Mach-O and ELF coming soon.

Thanks for reading and don’t forget to subscribe (via RSS or e-mail) and follow me on twitter.

References

1. http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/LowLevelABI/140-x86-64_Function_Calling_Conventions/x86_64.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40005035-SW1 [↩]
2. http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf [↩]

Download as PDF (3mb)
Descent into Darkness: Understanding your system’s binary interface is the only way out.