One modern Linux security hardening tactic is to compile & link code with the option -Wl,-z-noexecstack, this marks the DLL or binary as not needing an executable stack. This condition can be checked using readelf or other means.
I have been working with uClibc and noticed that it produces objects (.so files) that do not have this flag set. Yet uClibc has a configuration option UCLIBC_BUILD_NOEXECSTACK which according to the help means:
Mark all assembler files as noexecstack, which will mark uClibc
as not requiring an executable stack. (This doesn't prevent other
files you link against from claiming to need an executable stack, it
just won't cause uClibc to request it unnecessarily.)
This is a security thing to make buffer overflows harder to exploit.
...etc...
On some digging into the Makefiles this is correct - the flag is only applied to the assembler.
Because the flag is only passed to the assembler does this mean that the uClibc devs have missed an important hardening flag? There are other options, for example UCLIBC_BUILD_RELRO which do result in the equivalent flag being added to the linker (as -Wl,-z,relro)
However a casual observer could easily misread this and assume, as I originally did, that UCLIBC_BUILD_NOEXECSTACK is actually marking the .so file when it is in fact not. OpenWRT for example ensures that that flag is set when it builds uClibc.
Why would uClibc not do things the 'usual' way? What am I missing here? Are the libraries (e.g. librt.so, libpthread.so, etc) actually not NX?
EDIT
I was able to play with the Makefiles and get the noexecstack bit by using the -Wl,-z,noexecstack argument. So why would they not use that as well?
OK, it turns out after list conversation and further research that:
the GNU linker sets the DLL / executable stack state based on the 'lowest common denominator' i.e. if any linked or referenced part has an exec stack then the whole object is set this way
the 'correct' way to resolve this problem is actually to find and fix assembly / object files that use an exec stack when they dont need to.
Using the linker to 'fix' things is a workaround if you can't otherwise fix the root cause.
So for uClibc solution is to submit a bug so that the underlying objects get fixed. Otherwise anything linked with static libraries wont get a non-exec stack.
For my own question, if building a custom firmware not using any static libraries it is possibly sufficient to use the linker flag.
References:
Ubuntu Security Team - Executable Stacks
A very basic question to which I could not find an answer by searching on the internet.
Basically, I want to know:
how the compiler differentiates a user space code from the kernel space code?
Is the makefile differnt for compiling user space code compared to kernel space code ?
Best regards,
Kutty
The compiler just follows flags you pass to it, the rest is as usual and nothing magic.
For a small example, look at Writing Your Own Loadable Kernel Module. See also Modules vs. Program.
The difference is of course in how those modules and programs are treated by the OS and which permissions they have (see also rings).
I have a portal in my university LAN where people can upload code to programming puzzles in C/C++. I would like to make the portal secure so that people cannot make system calls via their submitted code. There might be several workarounds but I'd like to know if I could do it simply by setting some clever gcc flags. libc by default seems to include <unistd.h>, which appears to be the basic file where system calls are declared. Is there a way I could tell gcc/g++ to 'ignore' this file at compile time so that none of the functions declared in unistd.h can be accessed?
Some particular reason why chroot("/var/jail/empty"); setuid(65534); isn't good enough (assuming 65534 has sensible limits)?
Restricting access to the header file won't prevent you from accessing libc functions: they're still available if you link against libc - you just won't have the prototypes (and macros) to hand; but you can replicate them yourself.
And not linking against libc won't help either: system calls could be made directly via inline assembler (or even tricks involving jumping into data).
I don't think this is a good approach in general. Running the uploaded code in a completely self-contained virtual sandbox (via QEMU or something like that, perhaps) would probably be a better way to go.
-D can overwrite individual function names. For example:
gcc file.c -Dchown -Dchdir
Or you can set the include guard yourself:
gcc file.c -D_UNISTD_H
However their effects can be easily reverted with #undefs by intelligent submitters :)
I need to do a rather unusual thing: manually execute an elf executable. I.e. load all sections into right places, query main() and call it (and cleanup then). Executable will be statically linked, so there will be no need to link libraries. I also control base address, so no worries about possible conflicts.
So, is there are any libraries for that?
I found OSKit and its liboskit_exec, but project seems to be dead since 2002.
I'm OK with taking parts of projects (respecting licenses, of course) and tailoring them to my need, but as I'm quite a noob in the linux world, I dont even know where to find those parts! :)
PS. I need that for ARM platform.
UPD Well, the matter of loading elfs seems to require some good knowledge about it (sigh), so I'm out to read some specs and manuals. And I think I will stick to bionic/linker and libelfsh. Thanks guys!
Summarized findings:
libelf: http://directory.fsf.org/project/libelf/
elfsh and libelfsh (are now part of eresi): http://www.eresi-project.org/
elfio (another elf library): http://sourceforge.net/projects/elfio/
OSKit and liboskit_exec (outdated): http://www.cs.utah.edu/flux/oskit/
bionic/linker: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic
A quick apt-cache search suggests libelf1, libelfg0 and/or libelfsh0. I think the elfsh program (in the namesake package) might be an interesting practical example of how to use libelfsh0.
I haven't tried any myself, but I hope they might be helpful. Good luck :-)
Google's Android, in it's "bionic" libc implementation, has a completely reimplemented ELF loader. It's reasonably clean, and probably a better source than gilbc if you're looking for something simple.
Take a look at libelf for reading the executable format. You are going to have trouble with this I think.
Sounds like, as you don't need libraries for anything, why not just mmap your executable, set data about various memory areas and jmp/b in?
I don't know if ARM has an NX-bit equivalent, but worth checking.
This tool contains an ELF loader: http://bitwagon.com/rtldi/rtldi.html
I reused the code from rtldi for an ELF chainloader in another project. The code is here: http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/plash/trunk/chroot-jail/elf-chainloader/?rev=877 and there is some background here: http://plash.beasts.org/wiki/Story16. (Apparently I have to break these links because stackoverflow won't let me post >1 link!)
How to create a shared object that is statically linked with pthreads and libstdc++ on Linux/gcc?
Before I go to answering your question as it was described, I will note that it is not exactly clear what you are trying to achieve in the end, and there is probably a better solution to your problem.
That said - there are two main problems with trying to do what you described:
One is, that you will need to decompose libpthread and libstdc++ to the object files they are made with. This is because ELF binaries (used on Linux) have two levels of "run time" library loading - even when an executable is statically linked, the loader has to load the statically linked libraries within the binary on execution, and map the right memory addresses. This is done before the shared linkage of libraries that are dynamically loaded (shared objects) and mapped to shared memory. Thus, a shared object cannot be statically linked with such libraries, as at the time the object is loaded, all static linked libraries were loaded already. This is one difference between linking with a static library and a plain object file - a static library is not merely glued like any object file into the executable, but still contains separate tables which are referred to on loading. (I believe that this is in contrast to the much simpler static libraries in MS-DOS and classic Windows, .LIB files, but there may be more to those than I remember).
Of course you do not actually have to decompose libpthread and libstdc++, you can just use the object files generated when building them. Collecting them may be a bit difficult though (look for the objects referred to by the final Makefile rule of those libraries). And you would have to use ld directly and not gcc/g++ to link, to avoid linking with the dynamic versions as well.
The second problem is consequential. If you do the above, you will sure have such a shared object / dynamic library as you asked to build. However, it will not be very useful, as once you try to link a regular executable that uses those libpthread/libstdc++ (the latter being any C++ program) with this shared object, it will fail with symbol conflicts - the symbols of the static libpthread/libstdc++ objects you linked your shared object against will clash with the symbols from the standard libpthread/libstdc++ used by that executable, no matter if it is dynamically or statically linked with the standard libraries.
You could of course then try to either hide all symbols in the static objects from libstdc++/libpthread used by your shared library, make them private in some way, or rename them automatically on linkage so that there will be no conflict. However, even if you get that to work, you will find some undesireable results in runtime, since both libstdc++/libpthread keep quite a bit of state in global variables and structures, which you would now have duplicate and each unaware of the other. This will lead to inconsistencies between these global data and the underlying operating system state such as file descriptors and memory bounds (and perhaps some values from the standard C library such as errno for libstdc++, and signal handlers and timers for libpthread.
To avoid over-broad interpretation, I will add a remark: at times there can be sensible grounds for wanting to statically link against even such basic libraries as libstdc++ and even libc, and even though it is becoming a bit more difficult with recent systems and versions of those libraries (due to a bit of coupling with the loader and special linker tricks used), it is definitely possible - I did it a few times, and know of other cases in which it is still done. However, in that case you need to link a whole executable statically. Static linkage with standard libraries combined with dynamic linkage with other objects is not normally feasible.
Edit: One issue which I forgot to mention but is important to take into account is C++ specific. C++ was unfortunately not designed to work well with the classic model of object linkage and loading (used on Unix and other systems). This makes shared libraries in C++ not really portable as they should be, because a lot of things such as type information and templates are not cleanly separated between objects (often being taken, together with a lot of actual library code at compile time from the headers). libstdc++ for that reason is tightly coupled with GCC, and code compiled with one version of g++ will in general only work with the libstdc++ from with this (or a very similar) version of g++. As you will surely notice if you ever try to build a program with GCC 4 with any non-trivial library on your system that was built with GCC 3, this is not just libstdc++. If your reason for wanting to do that is trying to ensure that your shared object is always linked with the specific versions of libstdc++ and libpthread that it was built against, this would not help because a program that uses a different/incompatible libstdc++ would also be built with an incompatible C++ compiler or version of g++, and would thus fail to link with your shared object anyway, aside from the actual libstdc++ conflicts.
If you wonder "why wasn't this done simpler?", a general rumination worth pondering: For C++ to work nicely with dynamic/shared libraries (meaning compatibility across compilers, and the ability to replace a dynamic library with another version with a compatible interface without rebuilding everything that uses it), not just compiler standartization is needed, but at the level of the operating system's loader, the structure and interface of object and library files and the work of the linker would need to be significantly extended beyond the relatively simple Unix classics used on common operating systems (Microsoft Windows, Mach based systems and NeXTStep relatives such as Mac OS, VMS relatives and some mainframe systems also included) for natively built code today. The linker and dynamic loader would need to be aware of such things as templates and typing, having to some extent functionality of a small compiler to actually adapt the library's code to the type given to it - and (personal subjective observation here) it seems that higher-level intermediate intermediate code (together with higher-level languages and just-in-time compilation) is catching ground faster and likely to be standardized sooner than such extensions to the native object formats and linkers.
You mentioned in a separate comment that you are trying to port a C++ library to an embedded device. (I am adding a new answer here instead of editing my original answer here because I think other StackOverflow users interested in this original question may still be interested in that answer in its context)
Obviously, depending on how stripped down your embedded system is (I have not much embedded Linux experience, so I am not sure what is most likely), you may of course be able to just install the shared libstdc++ on it and dynamically link everything as you would do otherwise.
If dynamically linking with libstdc++ would not be good for you or not work on your system (there are so many different levels of embedded systems that one cannot know), and you need to link against a static libstdc++, then as I said, your only real option is static linking the executable using the library with it and libstdc++. You mentioned porting a library to the embedded device, but if this is for the purpose of using it in some code you write or build on the device and you do not mind a static libstdc++, then linking everything statically (aside from perhaps libc) is probably OK.
If the size of libstdc++ is a problem, and you find that your library is actually only using a small part of its interfaces, then I would nonetheless suggest first trying to determine the actual space you would save by linking against only the parts you need. It may be significant or not, I never looked that deep into libstdc++ and I suspect that it has a lot of internal dependencies, so while you surely do not need some of the interfaces, you may or may not still depend on a big part of its internals - I do not know and did not try, but it may surprise you. You can get an idea by just linking a binary using the library against a static build of it and libstdc++ (not forgetting to strip the binary, of course), and comparing the size of the resulting executable that with the total size of a (stripped) executable dynamically linked together with the full (stripped) shared objects of the library and libstdc++.
If you find that the size difference is significant, but do not want to statically link everything, you try to reduce the size of libstdc++ by rebuilding it without some parts you know that you do not need (there are configure-time options for some parts of it, and you can also try to remove some independent objects at the final creation of libstdc++.so. There are some tools to optimize the size of libraries - search the web (I recall one from a company named MontaVista but do not see it on their web site now, there are some others too).
Other than the straightforward above, some ideas and suggestions to think of:
You mentioned that you use uClibc, which I never fiddled with myself (my experience with embedded programming is a lot more primitive, mostly involving assembly programming for the embedded processor and cross-compiling with minimal embedded libraries). I assume you checked this, and I know that uClibc is intended to be a lightweight but rather full standard C library, but do not forget that C++ code is hardly independent on the C library, and g++ and libstdc++ depend on quite some delicate things (I remember problems with libc on some proprietary Unix versions), so I would not just assume that g++ or the GNU libstdc++ actually works with uClibc without trying - I don't recall seeing it mentioned in the uClibc pages.
Also, if this is an embedded system, think of its performance, compute power, overall complexity, and timing/simplicity/solidity requirements. Take into consideration the complexity involved, and think whether using C++ and threads is appropriate in your embedded system, and if nothing else in the system uses those, whether it is worth introducing for that library. It may be, not knowing the library or system I cannot tell (again, embedded systems being such a wide range nowadays).
And in this case also, just a quick link I stumbled upon looking for uClibc -- if you are working on an embedded system, using uClibc, and want to use C++ code on it -- take a look at uClibc++. I do not know how much of the standard C++ stuff you need and it already supports, and it seems to be an ongoing project, so not clear if it is in a state good enough for you already, but assuming that your work is also under development still, it might be a good alternative to GCC's libstdc++ for your embedded work.
I think this guy explains quite well why that wouldn't make sense. C++ code that uses your shared object but a different libstdc++ would link alright, but wouldn't work.