[WebAssembly] Verify contents of relocations target before writing it

[sbc100]

Summary

Verify that the location where a relocation is about the be
applied contains the expected existing value.

This is essentially a sanity check to catch bugs in the compiler
and the linker.

[sbc100]

• factor out separate change

[sbc100]

fix type

[ncw]

Cool, this is a good error-catching device. It could perhaps be debug-only on assert-only - but it's not exactly an expensive check, so I don't mind it being always on.

wasm/InputFiles.cpp

133

Can't you take the address of imported functions - yet functionTypes only contains the defined ones?

Something doesn't seem quite right about these indexes, but I'd have to play around with a couple of examples to be sure. I think the code that uses TableEntries above is correct (ie ElementIndex is the right thing to use).

[sbc100]

wasm/InputFiles.cpp

133

You are right.. i was trying to calculate the max function index here but I failed. I will try again :)

[sbc100]

• feedback

[ncw]

Looks good!

[ruiu]

I doubt that you really need to do that for every invocation of the linker. Generally speaking, relocation handling is what you want to optimize the most because the number of relocation can be really huge (it can be tens of millions). In addition to that, there are a lot of different ways that a compiler can be wrong, and catching only one error in the linker doesn't make much sense to me. Why is finding this particular error so important? We generally trust compilers that they create sane object files. To be honest, I think we should remove this check completely.

[sbc100]

In D44349#1037809, @ruiu wrote:

I doubt that you really need to do that for every invocation of the linker. Generally speaking, relocation handling is what you want to optimize the most because the number of relocation can be really huge (it can be tens of millions). In addition to that, there are a lot of different ways that a compiler can be wrong, and catching only one error in the linker doesn't make much sense to me. Why is finding this particular error so important? We generally trust compilers that they create sane object files. To be honest, I think we should remove this check completely.

I'd be OK with doing this is debug builds only perhaps.

The motivating reason is that we are thinking of adding linker relaxation for accessing external global addresses. I was speaking to @mcgrathr about this and he said that the linker (in this case at least) can/should/does check for sanity of the surrounding instructions before replacing/modifying it. So I'd also be OK only doing this when we do relaxation perhaps?

[ruiu]

The motivating reason is that we are thinking of adding linker relaxation for accessing external global addresses. I was speaking to @mcgrathr about this and he said that the linker (in this case at least) can/should/does check for sanity of the surrounding instructions before replacing/modifying it. So I'd also be OK only doing this when we do relaxation perhaps?

Maybe. If you already have some piece of data when processing something, and you can easily use that data to verify something, you probably should do that. But I don't think we do some extra validation for the sake of validation. In particular, creating a map and look it up for each relocation just for validation is too expensive and doesn't feel lld-ish.

[mcgrathr]

So Sam and I had dinner together. :-) I don't know a lot about WebAssembly and Sam doesn't know a lot about traditional (e.g. ELF) linkers, so we talked about the parallels in somewhat general terms while explaining the specifics to each other without distracting from our dessert.
In talking about what WebAssembly wants to do with converting some kinds of references to other kinds, I described the obvious analogy to the various kinds of linker relaxation that have been done in traditional machine code linking such as ELF.
There are two precedents that I can cite in detail off hand. In both cases the reloc type is specified in the ABI as for use with certain instruction patterns and the linker is expected to rewrite instructions with complete knowledge of their meaning, rather than just deliver values into bitfields.
One is x86-64's GOTPCREL and GOTPCRELX relocs, where GNU linkers check for expected opcode bytes immediate prior to the r_offset location and silently forego the instruction-rewriting optimization if the reloc is not used in the expected context.
The other is x86-64's TLS relocs, where GNU linkers check the opcode bytes immediatley prior to the r_offset location and diagnose an error if they don't match specific instruction patterns prescribed in the ABI for each reloc that enables linker relaxation (IIRC for some cases the x86 ABI mandates that linkers perform the relaxation, rather than just describing how the optimization is possible).
I don't know off hand how LLD handles these cases, but I would say that matching the GNU linkers' behavior is right--with the possible caveat that perhaps there should be a warning emitting for using GOTPCRELX relocs with instructions the linker doesn't know how to rewrite.
I know that other machines have many more relocs that are prescribed in their ABIs as for use with specific instruction patterns, but I don't know off hand what the details of those are, nor how existing linkers handle situations where such relocs are used with mismatching instructions.

[ruiu]

In D44349#1037891, @mcgrathr wrote:

So Sam and I had dinner together. :-) I don't know a lot about WebAssembly and Sam doesn't know a lot about traditional (e.g. ELF) linkers, so we talked about the parallels in somewhat general terms while explaining the specifics to each other without distracting from our dessert.
In talking about what WebAssembly wants to do with converting some kinds of references to other kinds, I described the obvious analogy to the various kinds of linker relaxation that have been done in traditional machine code linking such as ELF.
There are two precedents that I can cite in detail off hand. In both cases the reloc type is specified in the ABI as for use with certain instruction patterns and the linker is expected to rewrite instructions with complete knowledge of their meaning, rather than just deliver values into bitfields.
One is x86-64's GOTPCREL and GOTPCRELX relocs, where GNU linkers check for expected opcode bytes immediate prior to the r_offset location and silently forego the instruction-rewriting optimization if the reloc is not used in the expected context.
The other is x86-64's TLS relocs, where GNU linkers check the opcode bytes immediatley prior to the r_offset location and diagnose an error if they don't match specific instruction patterns prescribed in the ABI for each reloc that enables linker relaxation (IIRC for some cases the x86 ABI mandates that linkers perform the relaxation, rather than just describing how the optimization is possible).
I don't know off hand how LLD handles these cases, but I would say that matching the GNU linkers' behavior is right--with the possible caveat that perhaps there should be a warning emitting for using GOTPCRELX relocs with instructions the linker doesn't know how to rewrite.

lld relaxes these relocations assuming that a compiler emit an appropriate instruction to where a relocation is applied. We read data from the location where a relocation is applied to if it is needed to relax it, but we don't really verify whether an instruction at that location is a valid one or not. lld just does what is instructed to do by a compiler when processing relocations, and I like it. I don't think that finding a mismatching instruction for some type of relocation adds a practical value to the linker.

I know that other machines have many more relocs that are prescribed in their ABIs as for use with specific instruction patterns, but I don't know off hand what the details of those are, nor how existing linkers handle situations where such relocs are used with mismatching instructions.

[sbc100]

Would you be OK with leaving this code in behind ifndef NDEBUG? I think it is of some use during development at least.

[ruiu]

Can you make it a completely separated pass in the linker? I think that you can construct a table and visit all relocations (or symbols?) in a separate function rather than doing while processing some other data.

wasm/InputChunks.cpp

if (Relocations.empty())
     return;
 
   DEBUG(dbgs() << "applying relocations: count=" << Relocations.size() << "\n");
   int32_t Off = OutputOffset - getInputSectionOffset();
 
   for (const WasmRelocation &Rel : Relocations) {
     uint8_t *Loc = Buf + Rel.Offset + Off;
     uint32_t Value = File->calcNewValue(Rel);
+    uint32_t ExistingValue;
     DEBUG(dbgs() << "apply reloc: type=" << ReloctTypeToString(Rel.Type)
                  << " addend=" << Rel.Addend << " index=" << Rel.Index
                  << " value=" << Value << " offset=" << Rel.Offset << "\n");
 
     switch (Rel.Type) {
     case R_WEBASSEMBLY_TYPE_INDEX_LEB:
     case R_WEBASSEMBLY_FUNCTION_INDEX_LEB:
     case R_WEBASSEMBLY_GLOBAL_INDEX_LEB:
     case R_WEBASSEMBLY_MEMORY_ADDR_LEB:
+      ExistingValue = decodeULEB128(Loc);
       encodeULEB128(Value, Loc, 5);
       break;
     case R_WEBASSEMBLY_TABLE_INDEX_SLEB:
     case R_WEBASSEMBLY_MEMORY_ADDR_SLEB:
+      ExistingValue = static_cast<uint32_t>(decodeSLEB128(Loc));
       encodeSLEB128(static_cast<int32_t>(Value), Loc, 5);
       break;
     case R_WEBASSEMBLY_TABLE_INDEX_I32:
     case R_WEBASSEMBLY_MEMORY_ADDR_I32:
+      ExistingValue = static_cast<uint32_t>(read32le(Loc));
       write32le(Loc, Value);
       break;
     default:
       llvm_unreachable("unknown relocation type");
     }
+
+    uint32_t ExpectedValue = File->calcExpectedValue(Rel);
+    if (ExpectedValue != ExistingValue)
+      error("unexpected existing value for " + ReloctTypeToString(Rel.Type) +
+            ": existing=" + Twine(ExistingValue) +
+            " expected=" + Twine(ExpectedValue));
   }
 }
 
 // Copy relocation entries to a given output stream.
 // This function is used only when a user passes "-r". For a regular link,
 // we consume relocations instead of copying them to an output file.
 void InputChunk::writeRelocations(raw_ostream &OS) const {
   if (Relocations.empty())

wasm/InputFiles.h

public:
 
   // Returns the underlying wasm file.
   const WasmObjectFile *getWasmObj() const { return WasmObj.get(); }
 
   void dumpInfo() const;
 
   uint32_t calcNewIndex(const WasmRelocation &Reloc) const;
   uint32_t calcNewValue(const WasmRelocation &Reloc) const;
+  uint32_t calcExpectedValue(const WasmRelocation &Reloc) const;
 
   const WasmSection *CodeSection = nullptr;
   const WasmSection *DataSection = nullptr;
 
+  // Maps input type indices to output type indices
   std::vector<uint32_t> TypeMap;
   std::vector<bool> TypeIsUsed;
+  // Maps function indices to table indices
+  std::vector<uint32_t> TableEntries;
   std::vector<InputSegment *> Segments;
   std::vector<InputFunction *> Functions;
   std::vector<InputGlobal *> Globals;
 
   ArrayRef<Symbol *> getSymbols() const { return Symbols; }
   Symbol *getSymbol(uint32_t Index) const { return Symbols[Index]; }
   FunctionSymbol *getFunctionSymbol(uint32_t Index) const;
   DataSymbol *getDataSymbol(uint32_t Index) const;

wasm/InputFiles.cpp

 uint32_t ObjFile::calcNewIndex(const WasmRelocation &Reloc) const {
   if (Reloc.Type == R_WEBASSEMBLY_TYPE_INDEX_LEB) {
     assert(TypeIsUsed[Reloc.Index]);
     return TypeMap[Reloc.Index];
   }
   return Symbols[Reloc.Index]->getOutputSymbolIndex();
 }
 
+// Calculate the value we expect to find at the relocation location.
+// This is used as a sanity check before applying a relocation to a given
+// location.  It is useful for catching bugs in the compiler and linker.
+uint32_t ObjFile::calcExpectedValue(const WasmRelocation &Reloc) const {
+  switch (Reloc.Type) {
+  case R_WEBASSEMBLY_TABLE_INDEX_I32:
+  case R_WEBASSEMBLY_TABLE_INDEX_SLEB: {
+    const WasmSymbol& Sym = WasmObj->syms()[Reloc.Index];
+    return TableEntries[Sym.Info.ElementIndex];
+  }
+  case R_WEBASSEMBLY_MEMORY_ADDR_SLEB:
+  case R_WEBASSEMBLY_MEMORY_ADDR_I32:
+  case R_WEBASSEMBLY_MEMORY_ADDR_LEB: {
+    const WasmSymbol& Sym = WasmObj->syms()[Reloc.Index];
+    if (Sym.isUndefined())
+      return 0;
+    const WasmSegment& Segment = WasmObj->dataSegments()[Sym.Info.DataRef.Segment];
+    return Segment.Data.Offset.Value.Int32 + Sym.Info.DataRef.Offset;
+  }
+  case R_WEBASSEMBLY_TYPE_INDEX_LEB:
+    return Reloc.Index;
+  case R_WEBASSEMBLY_FUNCTION_INDEX_LEB:
+  case R_WEBASSEMBLY_GLOBAL_INDEX_LEB: {
+    const WasmSymbol& Sym = WasmObj->syms()[Reloc.Index];
+    return Sym.Info.ElementIndex;
+  }
+  default:
+    llvm_unreachable("unknown relocation type");
+  }
+}
+
 // Translate from the relocation's index into the final linked output value.
 uint32_t ObjFile::calcNewValue(const WasmRelocation &Reloc) const {
   switch (Reloc.Type) {
   case R_WEBASSEMBLY_TABLE_INDEX_I32:
   case R_WEBASSEMBLY_TABLE_INDEX_SLEB:
     return getFunctionSymbol(Reloc.Index)->getTableIndex();
   case R_WEBASSEMBLY_MEMORY_ADDR_SLEB:
   case R_WEBASSEMBLY_MEMORY_ADDR_I32:
void ObjFile::parse() {
   if (!Obj)
     fatal(toString(this) + ": not a wasm file");
   if (!Obj->isRelocatableObject())
     fatal(toString(this) + ": not a relocatable wasm file");
 
   Bin.release();
   WasmObj.reset(Obj);
 
+  // Build up a map of function indices to table indices for use when
+  // verifying the existing table index relocations
+  TableEntries.resize(WasmObj->functionTypes().size());
+  for (const WasmElemSegment &Seg : WasmObj->elements()) {
+    if (Seg.Offset.Opcode != WASM_OPCODE_I32_CONST)
+      fatal(toString(this) + ": invalid table elements");
+    uint32_t Offset = Seg.Offset.Value.Int32;
+    for (uint32_t Index = 0; Index < Seg.Functions.size(); Index++) {
+
+      uint32_t FunctionIndex = Seg.Functions[Index];
+      TableEntries[FunctionIndex] = Offset + Index;
+    }
+  }
+
   // Find the code and data sections.  Wasm objects can have at most one code
   // and one data section.
   for (const SectionRef &Sec : WasmObj->sections()) {
     const WasmSection &Section = WasmObj->getWasmSection(Sec);
     if (Section.Type == WASM_SEC_CODE)
       CodeSection = &Section;
     else if (Section.Type == WASM_SEC_DATA)
       DataSection = &Section;