Program Loader and Runtime linker are the same in linux?
I mean ld-linux.so acts as both loader during a program start time, and also as dynamic linker when dlopen() is called?
I think there are very related, but not exactly the same.
The /lib/libdl.so (or /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdl.so.2 on my system) library (containing dlopen and dlsym) is a sort of stub or glue code or wrapper using some part of /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (or /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) but it does not contain the same symbols, as you can check with nm -D.
Definitely dlopen and the dynamic loader do very similar things: mmap-ing segments and interpreting relocation orders. See this link and levine's linkers and loaders book
Look into Gnu Libc source code like dl-runtime.c etc
Program Loader and Runtime linker are the same in linux?
Yes, they are. This is also true for every other ELF platform.
Related
I was going through disassembly of elf executables and understanding the elf format. In there, I saw lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 used as program interpreter in the generated executable.
My guess is: I had used printf in the source code, which had to be dynamically linked. When I checked through dynamic section, I was able to find a reference to libc.so.6 shared library (tag:DT_NEEDED). In my system, I found multiple files with that name in different directories:
sourav#ubuntu-VirtualBox:/$ sudo find / -name libc.so.6
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
find: ‘/run/user/1000/doc’: Permission denied
find: ‘/run/user/1000/gvfs’: Permission denied
/snap/snapd/13170/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
/snap/snapd/11107/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
/snap/core18/1988/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
/snap/core18/1988/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
/snap/core18/2128/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
/snap/core18/2128/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
So, I guess purpose of program interpreter is to resolve these names to the proper libraries and load them during execution. Is this correct?
It seems, we can also have executables with no program interpreter (which is the case for program interpreter itself). In that case, does system/os itself loads the shared library? If so, how does it resolves the path of library?
Is it possible to generate executable with no program interpreter using gcc? My gcc version is 'gcc version 9.3.0 (Ubuntu 9.3.0-17ubuntu1~20.04)'.
So, I guess purpose of program interpreter is to resolve these names to the proper libraries and load them during execution. Is this correct?
Yes, but that that's a bit minimalistic. Loading dynamic libraries involves locating them, loading or mapping them into memory if necessary, and resolving dynamic symbols within, possibly lazily, for multiple kinds of relocations. It involves recursively loading the libraries' own needed libraries. Also, in a dynamically linked executable, the program interpreter provides the program entry point (from the kernel's perspective), so it is also responsible for setting up and entering the program-specific entry point (for example, main() in a C or C++ program).
It seems, we can also have executables with no program interpreter (which is the case for program interpreter itself). In that case, does system/os itself loads the shared library? If so, how does it resolves the path of library?
You can have ELF executables without a program interpreter, but they are not dynamically linked, at least not in the ELF sense. There are no shared libraries to load, and certainly the system does not load any.
Is it possible to generate executable with no program interpreter using gcc? My gcc version is 'gcc version 9.3.0 (Ubuntu 9.3.0-17ubuntu1~20.04)'.
If you have static versions of all needed libraries available then you should be able to achieve that by including the -static option on the command line when you link the program. It is entirely possible, however, that you do not have the needed static libraries, even if libc is the only library you need.
I apologize if my question is not precise because I don't have a lot
of Linux related experience. I'm currently building a Linux from
scratch (mostly following the guide at linuxfromscratch.org version
7.3). I ran into the following problem: when I build an executable it
gets a hardcoded path to something called ELF interpreter.
readelf -l program
shows something like
[Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-linux.so.2]
I traced this library ld-linux-so.2 to be part of glibc. I am not very
happy with this behaviour because it makes the binary very unportable
- if I change the location of /lib/ld-linux.so.2 the executable no
longer works and the only "fix" I found is to use the patchelf utility
from NixOS to change the hardcoded path to another hardcoded path. For
this reason I would like to link against a static version of the ld
library but such is not produced. And so this is my question, could
you please explain how could I build glibc so that it will produce a
static version of ld-linux.so.2 which I could later link to my
executables. I don't fully understand what this ld library does, but I
assume this is the part that loads other dynamic libraries (or at
least glibc.so). I would like to link my executables dynamically, but
I would like the dynamic linker itself to be statically built into
them, so they would not depend on hardcoded paths. Or alternatively I
would like to be able to set the path to the interpreter with
environment variable similar to LD_LIBRARY_PATH, maybe
LD_INTERPRETER_PATH. The goal is to be able to produce portable
binaries, that would run on any platform with the same ABI no matter
what the directory structure is.
Some background that may be relevant: I'm using Slackware 14 x86 to
build i686 compiler toolchain, so overall it is all x86 host and
target. I am using glibc 2.17 and gcc 4.7.x.
I would like to be able to set the path to the interpreter with environment variable similar to LD_LIBRARY_PATH, maybe LD_INTERPRETER_PATH.
This is simply not possible. Read carefully (and several times) the execve(2), elf(5) & ld.so(8) man pages and the Linux ABI & ELF specifications. And also the kernel code doing execve.
The ELF interpreter is responsible for dynamic linking. It has to be a file (technically a statically linked ELF shared library) at some fixed location in the file hierarchy (often /lib/ld.so.2 or /lib/ld-linux.so.2 or /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
The old a.out format from the 1990s had a builtin dynamic linker, partly implemented in old Linux 1.x kernel. It was much less flexible, and much less powerful.
The kernel enables, by such (in principle) arbitrary dynamic linker path, to have various dynamic linkers. But most systems have only one. This is a good way to parameterize the dynamic linker. If you want to try another one, install it in the file system and generate ELF executables mentioning that path.
With great pain and effort, you might make your own ld.so-like dynamic linker implementing your LD_INTERPRETER_PATH wish, but that linker still has to be an ELF shared library sitting at some fixed location in the file tree.
If you want a system not needing any files (at some predefined, and wired locations, like /lib/ld.so, /dev/null, /sbin/init ...), you'll need to build all its executable binaries statically. You may want (but current Linux distributions usually don't do that) to have a few statically linked executables (like /sbin/init, /bin/sash...) that will enable you to repair a system broken to the point of not having any dynamic linker.
BTW, the /sbin/init -or /bin/sh - path is wired inside the kernel itself. You may pass some argument to the kernel at boot load time -e.g. with GRUB- to overwrite the default. So even the kernel wants some files to be here!
As I commented, you might look into MUSL-Libc for an alternative Libc implementation (providing its own dynamic linker). Read also about VDSO and ASLR and initrd.
In practice, accept the fact that modern Linuxes and Unixes are expecting some non-empty file system ... Notice that dynamic linking and shared libraries are a huge progress (it was much more painful in the 1990s Linux kernels and distributions).
Alternatively, define your own binary format, then make a kernel module or a binfmt_misc entry to handle it.
BTW, most (or all) of Linux is free software, so you can improve it (but this will take months -or many years- of work to you). Please share your improvements by publishing them.
Read also Drepper's Hwo to Write Shared Libraries paper; and this question.
I ran into the same issue. In my case I want to bundle my application with a different GLIBC than comes system installed. Since ld-linux.so must match the GLIBC version I can't simply deploy my application with the according GLIBC. The problem is that I can't run my application on older installations that don't have the required GLIBC version.
The path to the loader interpreter can be modified with --dynamic-linker=/path/to/interp. However, this needs to be set at compile time and therefore would require my application to be installed in that location (or at least I would need to deploy the ld-linux.so that goes with my GLIBC in that location which goes against a simple xcopy deployment.
So what's needed is an $ORIGIN option equivalent to what the -rpath option can handle. That would allow for a fully dynamic deployment.
Given the lack of a dynamic interpreter path (at runtime) leaves two options:
a) Use patchelf to modify the path before the executable gets launched.
b) Invoke the ld-linux.so directly with the executable as an argument.
Both options are not as 'integrated' as a compiled $ORIGIN path in the executable itself.
I built linux kernel module with SSP support for mips architecture. I added -fstack-protector-all to compilation flags. But after loading this module I've got undefined references to __stack_chk_guard and __stack_chk_fail. But I added libssp.so to linker. It looks like I should export those symbols in kernel something like this:
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__stack_chk_guard);
Because my kernel is old and didn't contain them yet. But unfortunately I should use this version.
My question is: why user space can use this symbols from toolchain library, but kernel space don't ?
I think, I missed some linux kernel essentials.
You can't link the kernel to shared libraries. If you have a static library of libssp, it MAY work - but it would require that the library isn't calling something else that would cause problems in the kernel.
In general, stack-checking isn't something that you should be doing on the kernel - I'm pretty sure it serves no particularly good purpose [I'm also pretty sure that the kernel uses a "guard page" for each kernel stack].
You cannot use shared libraries anywhere in kernel space (including as part of kernel modules).
You could think of kernel modules themselves as an equivalent of shared libraries in kernel space but with lot of differences.
Kernel modules can depend on exported symbols from other kernel modules.
My question is: why user space can use this symbols from toolchain
library, but kernel space don't ?
Nothing in kernel space has access to the libc C library. Kernel has its own set of builtin standard string manipulation functions, etc. that you could use instead. The toolchain libraries are built on top of libc.
+1 on Mats's answer. You could use a static library as long as it does not depend on standard C libraries like libc
On Linux you can inspect /proc/$PID/pmaps to see the libraries loaded by a particular program, and a program can open /proc/self/pmaps to examine the libraries it itself has loaded.
I know pmaps will only contain dynamic libraries, and obviously the kernel can't predict which libraries we might dlopen at a later point, so I expect those aren't included in /proc/self/maps. But I'm unsure of a few other other scenarios:
Are libraries that have been linked at build time but we haven't called any function in yet included? My understanding is the Linux delays linking symbols until the first time they are used, so I'm not sure if they'll show up.
Does pmaps contain all the libraries used recursively? E.g. if I look at each library in pmaps and run ldd on it, and then run ldd on those, ad nauseum, I shouldn't find any new libraries that weren't in the original pmaps? I tried this on a couple binaries and it appears to be so but maybe I'm getting lucky.
Are libraries that have been linked at build time but we haven't called any function in yet included?
Yes: the runtime loader will mmap every library that your executable directly depends on, before your program starts running.
You can find the list of such libraries by running
readelf -d a.out | grep NEEDED
Does pmaps contain all the libraries used recursively?
Yes: if a library that you directly depend on itself depends on some other library, the runtime loader will mmap the recursive dependencies as well.
My understanding is the Linux delays linking symbols until the first time they are used
That is mosty correct for function symbols, but false for data symbols, which can't be resolved lazily.
Also, whether the symbols are resolved lazily or not depends on LD_BIND_NOW environment variable, and on an equivalent setting in the executable dynamic section, controlled by -znow linker flag.
None of that changes the mmap pciture though; if you have a DT_NEEDED entry for foo.so in your dynamic section, then foo.so will be mmaped (and will show in /proc/self/*map*) independent of lazy or non-lazy resolution.
/proc/$pid/maps is not only going to list libraries that are loaded, but also ALL other mapped memory segments.
Read this thread and the article in there:
Understanding Linux /proc/id/maps
I am working on a project to load and run a custom binary format executable (PE, in my case) on a Linux platform. I've done this pretty successfully so far by first loading the executable and then loading a small ELF shared library that calls the start address of the executable and then exits safely.
I would really like not doing the ELF loading myself for a few reasons, though. First, the shared library I use is written in assembly (I can't use anything else because I'm not linking to libc, etc.), which will be very platform-specific, and I'd like to move away from that and use C so I can compile for any platform. Also, it will be easier and safer to use Linux's native ELF loader instead of my own simplified version.
I'm wondering if there is a way to use my binfmt handler, an installed kernel module, to load my executable and then ask Linux to load my shared library (and its dependencies) into the same address space without overwriting my executable code. I first thought that the uselib syscall might be useful, but the description on the man page is unclear about whether or not this will serve my purposes:
From libc 4.4.4 on only the library "/lib/ld.so" is loaded, so that
this dynamic library can load the remaining libraries needed (again
using this call). This is also the state of affairs in libc5.
glibc2 does not use this call.
I've also never seen an example of its use, and I'm always wary of using syscalls that I don't understand.
Is there a good way to achieve what I've described? Can I use Linux's existing capabilities to load a shared library (written in C) into an address space already containing executable code, and, if so, how can I use that library without knowing where it has been loaded?
there is already a project like this called binfmt_pe (by me!) which is a kernel module and will have it's own linker (similar to /lib/ld). check it out here.
As for your question about making modules and the loader/linker, there are links below. I also included links with info about ELF and PE executables.
I hope this helps. :)
Useful information for making a Linux Kernel Module
The Linux Kernel Module Programming Guide
Writing Your Own Loadable Kernel Module
Linux Data Structures
The Linux kernel: The kernel source
Kernel Support for miscellaneous Binary Formats
binfmt_elf.c
binfmt_misc.c
Information About Dynamnic Loading/Linking
Understanding ld-linux.so.2
ld.so : Dynamic-Link Library support
How To Write Shared Libraries - PDF
ld-linux(8) - Linux man page
rpath
Listing Shared Library Dependencies
Information About ELF and PE Formats
OSRC: Executable File Formats
EXE Format
How Windows NT Recognizes MS-DOS - Based Applications
Common Object File Format (COFF)
Peering Inside the PE: A Tour of the Win32 Portable Executable File Format
Executable and Linkable Format
An In-Depth Look into the Win32 Portable Executable File Format
An In-Depth Look into the Win32 Portable Executable File Format, Part 2
Injective Code Inside an Import Table
The PE Format | Hackers Library
IMAGE_NT_HEADERS structure (Windows)
x86 Disassembly/Windows Executable Files
the Portable Executable Format on Windows