Archive for the ‘x86’ Category
Dynamic Linking: ELF vs. Mach-O

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
- Transfers execution directly to the function.
OR
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:
- ELF puts the entire PLT entry together in nicely named section called
pltinstead of splicing it out across multiple sections. - The table entries indirected through with the initial
jmpqinstruction 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 convention1 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-%xmm7kind 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
Descent into Darkness: Understanding your system’s binary interface is the only way out
Download as PDF (3mb)
Descent into Darkness: Understanding your system’s binary interface is the only way out.
EventMachine: scalable non-blocking i/o in ruby
String together global offset tables to build a Ruby memory profiler

If you enjoy this article, subscribe (via RSS or e-mail) and follow me on twitter.
Disclaimer
The tricks, techniques, and ugly hacks in this article are PLATFORM SPECIFIC, DANGEROUS, and NOT PORTABLE.
This is the third article in a series of articles describing a set of low level hacks that I used to create memprof a Ruby level memory profiler. You should be able to survive without reading the other articles in this series, but you can check them out here and here.
How is this different from the other hooking articles/techniques?
The previous articles explained how to insert trampolines in the .text segment of a binary. This article explains a cool technique for hooking functions in the .text segment of shared libraries, allowing your handler to run, and then resuming execution. Hooking shared libraries turns out to be less work than hooking the binary (in the case of Ruby, that is), but making it all happen was a bit tricky. Read on to learn more.
The “problem” with shared libraries
The problem is that if a trampoline is inserted into the code of the shared library, the trampoline will need to invoke the dynamic linker to resolve the function that is being hooked, call the function, do whatever additional logic is desired, and then resume execution.
In other words you need to (somehow) insert a trampoline for a function that will call the function being trampolined without ending up in an infinite loop.
The additional complexity occurs because when shared libraries are loaded, the kernel decides at runtime where exactly in memory the library should be loaded. Since the exact location of symbols is not known at link time, a procedure linkage table (.plt) is created so that the program and the dynamic linker can work together to resolve symbol addresses.
I explained how .plts work in a previous article, but looking at this again is worthwhile. I’ve simplified the explanation a bit1, but at a high level:
- Program calls a function in a shared object, the link editor makes sure that the program jumps to a stub function in the
.plt - The program sets some data up for the dynamic linker and then hands control over to it.
- The dynamic linker looks at the info set up by the program and fills in the absolute address of the function that was called in the
.pltin the global offset table (.got). - Then the dynamic linker calls the function.
- Subsequent calls to the same function jump to the same stub in the
.plt, but every time after the first call the absolute address is already in the.got(because when the dynamic linker is invoked the first time, it fills in the absolute address in the.got).
Disassembling a short Ruby VM function that calls rb_newobj (a memory allocation routine that we’d like to hook), shows the calls to the .plt:
000000000001af10: . . . . 1af14: e8 e7 c6 ff ff callq 17600 [rb_newobj@plt] . . . .
Let’s take a look at the corresponding .plt stub:
0000000000017600: 17600: ff 25 6a 9c 2c 00 jmpq *0x2c9c6a(%rip) # 2e1270 [_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_+0x288] 17606: 68 4e 00 00 00 pushq $0x4e 1760b: e9 00 fb ff ff jmpq 17110 <_init+0x18>
Important fact: The program and each shared library has its own .plt and .got sections (amongst other sections). Keep this in mind as it’ll be handy very shortly.
That is a lot of stub code to reproduce in the trampoline. Reproducing that stuff in the trampoline shouldn’t be hard, but invites a large number of bugs over to play. Is there a better way?
What is a global offset table (.got)?
The global offset table (.got) is a table of absolute addresses that can be filled in at runtime. In the assembly dump above, the .got entry for rb_newobj is referenced in the .plt stub code.
Intercepting a function call
It would be awesome if it were possible to overwrite the .got entry for rb_newobj and insert the address of a trampoline. But how would the intercepting function call rb_newobj itself without ending up in an infinite loop?
The important fact above comes in to save the day.
Since each shared object has its own .plt and .got sections, it is possible to overwrite the .got entry for rb_newobj in every shared object except for the object where the trampoline lives. Then, when rb_newobj is called, the .plt entry will redirect execution to the trampoline. The trampoline then calls out to its .plt entry for rb_newobj which is left untouched allowing rb_newobj to be resolved and called out to successfully.
Not as easy as it sounds, though
This solution is less work than the other hooking methods, but it has its own particular details as well:
- You’ll need to walk the link map at runtime to determine the base address for the shared library you are hooking (it could be anywhere).
- Next, you’ll need to parse the
.rela.pltsection which contains information on the location of each.pltstub, relative to the base address of the shared object. - Once you have the address of the
.pltstub, you’ll need to determine the absolute address of the.gotentry by parsing the first instruction of the.pltstub (ajmp) as seen in the disassembly above. - Finally, you can write to the
.gotentry the address of your trampoline, as long as the trampoline lives in a different shared library.
You’ve now successfully managed to poison the .got entry of a symbol in one shared library to direct execution to your own function which can then call the intercepted function itself without getting stuck in an infinite loop.
Conclusion
- There are lots of sections in each ELF object. Each section is special and important.
- ELF documentation can be difficult to obtain and understand.
- Got pretty lucky this time around. I was getting a little worried that it would get complicated. Made it out alive, though.
Thanks for reading and don’t forget to subscribe (via RSS or e-mail) and follow me on twitter.
References
memprof: A Ruby level memory profiler

If you enjoy this article, subscribe (via RSS or e-mail) and follow me on twitter.
What is memprof and why do I care?
memprof is a Ruby gem which supplies memory profiler functionality similar to bleak_house without patching the Ruby VM. You just install the gem, call a function or two, and off you go.
Where do I get it?
memprof is available on gemcutter, so you can just:
gem install memprof
Feel free to browse the source code at: http://github.com/ice799/memprof.
How do I use it?
Using memprof is simple. Before we look at some examples, let me explain more precisely what memprof is measuring.
memprof is measuring the number of objects created and not destroyed during a segment of Ruby code. The ideal use case for memprof is to show you where objects that do not get destroyed are being created:
- Objects are created and not destroyed when you create new classes. This is a good thing.
- Sometimes garbage objects sit around until
garbage_collecthas had a chance to run. These objects will go away. - Yet in other cases you might be holding a reference to a large chain of objects without knowing it. Until you remove this reference, the entire chain of objects will remain in memory taking up space.
memprof will show objects created in all cases listed above.
OK, now Let’s take a look at two examples and their output.
A simple program with an obvious memory “leak”:
require 'memprof'
@blah = Hash.new([])
Memprof.start
100.times {
@blah[1] << "aaaaa"
}
1000.times {
@blah[2] << "bbbbb"
}
Memprof.stats
Memprof.stop
This program creates 1100 objects which are not destroyed during the start and stop sections of the file because references are held for each object created.
Let's look at the output from memprof:
1000 test.rb:11:String
100 test.rb:7:String
In this example memprof shows the 1100 created, broken up by file, line number, and type.
Let's take a look at another example:
require 'memprof' Memprof.start require "stringio" StringIO.new Memprof.stats
This simple program is measuring the number of objects created when requiring stringio.
Let's take a look at the output:
108 /custom/ree/lib/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/stringio.so:0:__node__
14 test2.rb:3:String
2 /custom/ree/lib/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/stringio.so:0:Class
1 test2.rb:4:StringIO
1 test2.rb:4:String
1 test2.rb:3:Array
1 /custom/ree/lib/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/stringio.so:0:Enumerable
This output shows an internal Ruby interpreter type __node__ was created (these represent code), as well as a few Strings and other objects. Some of these objects are just garbage objects which haven't had a chance to be recycled yet.
What if nudge the garbage_collector along a little bit just for our example? Let's add the following two lines of code to our previous example:
GC.start Memprof.stats
We're now nudging the garbage collector and outputting memprof stats information again. This should show fewer objects, as the garbage collector will recycle some of the garbage objects:
108 /custom/ree/lib/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/stringio.so:0:__node__
2 test2.rb:3:String
2 /custom/ree/lib/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/stringio.so:0:Class
1 /custom/ree/lib/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/stringio.so:0:Enumerable
As you can see above, a few Strings and other objects went away after the garbage collector ran.
Which Rubies and systems are supported?
- Only unstripped binaries are supported. To determine if your Ruby binary is stripped, simply run:
file `which ruby`. If it is, consult your package manager's documentation. Most Linux distributions offer a package with an unstripped Ruby binary. - Only x86_64 is supported at this time. Hopefully, I'll have time to add support for i386/i686 in the immediate future.
- Linux Ruby Enterprise Edition (1.8.6 and 1.8.7) is supported.
- Linux MRI Ruby 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 built with --disable-shared are supported. Support for --enable-shared binaries is coming soon.
- Snow Leopard support is experimental at this time.
- Ruby 1.9 support coming soon.
How does it work?
If you've been reading my blog over the last week or so, you'd have noticed two previous blog posts (here and here) that describe some tricks I came up with for modifying a running binary image in memory.
memprof is a combination of all those tricks and other hacks to allow memory profiling in Ruby without the need for custom patches to the Ruby VM. You simply require the gem and off you go.
memprof works by inserting trampolines on object allocation and deallocation routines. It gathers metadata about the objects and outputs this information when the stats method is called.
What else is planned?
Myself, Jake Douglas, and Aman Gupta have lots of interesting ideas for new features. We don't want to ruin the surprise, but stay tuned. More cool stuff coming really soon :)
Thanks for reading and don't forget to subscribe (via RSS or e-mail) and follow me on twitter.

