This article describes an interesting overflow bug in the ELF hash function.
The System V Application Binary Interface (generic ABI) specifies the
ELF object file format. When producing an executable or shared object
file needing a dynamic symbol table (.dynsym
), a linker
generates a .hash
section with type SHT_HASH
to hold a symbol
hash table. A DT_HASH
tag is produced to hold the
address of .hash
.
The hash table is used by a dynamic loader to perform symbol lookup
(for dynamic relocations and dlsym
family functions). A
detailed description of the format can be found in ELF: symbol lookup via
DT_HASH
.
Other use cases
In a Solaris Version Definition Section, vd_hash
holds a
value generated using the ELF hash function. The GNU symbol versioning
scheme inherits this field from Solaris. Dynamic loaders use this field
to accelerate symbol lookup of versioned symbols.
Given such a small number of version definitions, even if a dynamic loader implementation has a bug, the overflow bug described below is very unlikely to cause any problems.
Overflow bug
The generic ABI gives the following code fragment in "Figure 5-13: Hashing Function".
1 | unsigned long |
The function is supposed to return a value no larger than 0x0fffffff.
h &= ~g
clears the 4 highest bits in a 32-bit integer.
(This isn't a good hash function: the high bits are unnecessarily
discarded.)
Unfortunately, there is a bug. When unsigned long
consists of more than 32 bits, the return value may be larger than
UINT32_MAX
. If h
is in the range
[0x0fffff01,0x0fffffff]
in the previous iteration, shifting
it by 4 and adding *name
may make h
larger
than UINT32_MAX
.
For instance,
elf_hash((const unsigned char *)"\xff\x0f\x0f\x0f\x0f\x0f\x12")
returns 0x100000002, which is clearly unintended, as the function should
behave the same way regardless of whether long
represents a
32-bit integer or a 64-bit integer.
It is possible to use 7-bit ASCII characters to trigger the issue. For instance,
elf_hash((const unsigned char *)"iiiiii\na")) == 100000001
elf_hash((const unsigned char *)"ZZZZZX+a")) == 100000011
elf_hash((const unsigned char *)"ZZZZZW9p")) == 100000000
Most ELF operating systems have switched from DT_HASH
to
DT_GNU_HASH
for many years and prefer
DT_GNU_HASH
for symbol search. We can build a shared object
with ld -shared --hash-style=sysv
and check whether a
dynamic symbol named "ZZZZZW9p" can be bound by relocation
resolver/dlsym
.
A bug in FreeBSD rtld-elf
If we compile the following C source file and link it with
-shared -fuse-ld=lld -Wl,--hash-style=sysv
, we get 3
dynamic symbols and a SysV hash table with nbuckets=3
. As
of April 2023, dlsym(dl, "ZZZZZW9p")
returns NULL on
FreeBSD.
1 | void ZZZZZW9p(void) {} |
If we link the shared object with --hash-style=gnu
or
--hash-style=both
, rtld-elf will use the GNU hash table
(DT_GNU_HASH
) and dlsym(dl, "ZZZZZW9p")
will
return the correct value.
This was just fixed by rtld: fix SysV hash function overflow, prompted by this article. I am so thrilled - my article led to a bug fix within a few hours of my posting it. I did check the FreeBSD source before publishing this article and would have wanted to fix the issue for my own pleasure, but having a FreeBSD developer fix it made me even happier.:)
Project survey
glibc fixed the overflow issue while optimizing the function in April 1995. The two XOR operations were optimized to one in Dec 2011.
binutils-gdb fixed the overflow issue in May 2003. The function has a lovely comment "... Do not change this function; you will cause invalid hash tables to be generated."
musl has had the elegant and efficient implementation since June 2011
(initial check-in of the dynamic linker). It is worth noting that
uint_fast32_t
is used, so that an architecture can optimize
the implementation if the architecture has slow 32-bit integer
arithmetic operations.
1 | static uint32_t sysv_hash(const char *s0) |
Nathan Sidwell raised the
issue for llvm-project and pointed out a bug about using
char
instead of unsigned char
on
2023-04-09.
I asked What if the result of elf_hash is larger than UINT32_MAX? on 2023-04-11.