Project

General

Profile

Actions

Bug #20154

open

aarch64: configure overrides `-mbranch-protection` if it was set in CFLAGS via environment

Added by jprokop (Jarek Prokop) about 2 months ago. Updated about 2 months ago.

Status:
Open
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
ruby -v:
ruby 3.3.0 (2023-12-25 revision 5124f9ac75) [aarch64-linux]
[ruby-core:116039]

Description

Recently a GH PR was merged https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/9306 For PAC/BTI support on ARM CPUs for Coroutine.S.

Without proper compilation support in configure.ac it segfaults Ruby with fibers on CPUs where PAC is supported: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20085

At the time of writing, configure.ac appends the first option from a list for flag -mbranch-protection that successfully compiles a program https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/configure.ac#L829,
to XCFLAGS and now also ASFLAGS to fix issue 20085 for Ruby master.

This is suboptimal for Fedora as we set -mbranch-protection=standard by default in C{,XX}FLAGS:

CFLAGS='-O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Werror=implicit-function-declaration -Werror=implicit-int -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1  -mbranch-protection=standard -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer '
export CFLAGS
CXXFLAGS='-O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1  -mbranch-protection=standard -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer'
export CXXFLAGS

And the appended flag overrides distribution's compilation configuration, which in this case ends up omitting BTI instructions and only using PAC.

Would it make sense to check if such flags exist and not overwrite them if they do?

Serious proposals:

  1. Simplest fix that does not overwrite what is set in the distribution and results in higher security is simply prepending the list of options with -mbranch-protection=standard, it should cause no problems on ARMv8 CPUs and forward, BTI similarly to PAC instructions result into NOP, it is only extending the capability.

See attached 0001-aarch64-Check-mbranch-protection-standard-first-to-u.patch

  1. Other fix that sounds more sane IMO and dodges this kind of guessing where are all the correct places for the flag is what another Fedora contributor Florian Weimer suggested: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CVTNF2OQCL3XZHUUFNYMDK6ZEF2SWUEN/

"The reliable way to do this would be to compile a C file and check
whether that enables __ARM_FEATURE_PAC_DEFAULT, and if that's the case,
define a different macro for use in the assembler implementation.
This way, you don't need to care about the exact name of the option."

IOW instead of using _ARM_FEATURE* directly in that code, define a macro in the style of "USE_PAC" with value of the feature if it is defined, I think that way we shouldn't need to append ASFLAGS anymore.

However it's also important to catch the value of those macros as their values have meaning, I have an idea how to do that but I'd get on that monday earliest.


Files

Updated by jprokop (Jarek Prokop) about 2 months ago

  • ruby -v set to ruby 3.3.0 (2023-12-25 revision 5124f9ac75) [aarch64-linux]

I have looked at other aspects of the options and inspected the assembly outputted with -mbranch-protection={standard,pac-ret} in Fedora PR's workaround https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/167

Updated by katei (Yuta Saito) about 2 months ago

Right, the configure.ac should respect user given CFLAGS as much as possible.
I will make follow-up fixes to avoid overriding the option, but I don't think we can get it merged in 3.3.x branch since the overriding issue is not an obvious regression. (3.2.x also has the same problem, IIUC)

Anyway, your patch in the downstream seems reasonable to me as a temporal fix.

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF

Like0
Like0Like0