Protected Symbols

Now for something really controversial: what’s wrong with protected symbols?

In an ELF shared library, an ordinary global symbol may be overridden if a symbol of the same name is defined in the executable or in a shared library which appears earlier in the runtime search path. This is called symbol interposition. It is often used with functions such as malloc. A shared library can define malloc and it can have code which calls malloc. If the executable linked with the shared library defines malloc itself, then the version in the executable will be used rather than the version in the shared library. This permits the executable to control the memory allocation done by the shared library, perhaps for debugging or logging purposes. In this regard, shared libraries act much as static archives do.

This has a few consequences. One of them is that within a shared library, all references to a global symbol must use the GOT and PLT, to make the overriding possible. That means that all function calls and variable accesses are slightly slower. Also, some compiler optimizations are forbidden: the compiler can not inline a call to a global symbol, since that symbol might be overridden at run time.

When building a shared library, you can provide a version script which indicates that some symbols are actually not global. That can eliminate the GOT and PLT accesses, but it does not permit the compiler optimizations, and you do have to write that version script and keep it up to date.

When compiling code that goes into a shared library, you can set the visibility of symbols. You can use hidden visibility, which means that the symbol is not visible outside the shared library. You can use internal visibility, which is a lot like hidden—I’ll skip the difference here. Or you can use protected visibility. Protected visibility means that the symbol is visible outside of the shared library, and can be accessed as usual. However, all references from within the shared library will use the definition in the shared library. In other words, the symbol acts more or less as usual, but it can not be overridden. This means that accesses to the symbol avoid the GOT and PLT, and it permits compiler optimizations.

So, what’s wrong with them? It turns out that protected symbols are slower at dynamic link time, which means that programs which use the shared library start up slower. This happens because of the C rule that two pointers to the same function must compare as equal. Since protected symbols are globally visible, you can get a pointer to a protected function in the main executable. You can also get a pointer to that same function in the shared library, of course. Those pointers have to be equal, or the C rule will break.

As noted, the access to the function in the shared library will not use the GOT or PLT. The access in the main executable obviously will use the PLT. How can we make those function pointers equal? We can’t. The executable will have a direct reference to the PLT. The shared library will have a direct reference to the function itself. In neither case will there be a relocation for the reference. So there is no way to make the results equal. (This can work for some targets, but not for ones with simple function references like the x86 targets.)

So, I must have lied. The lie was that there is a case where you need to use the GOT for a protected symbol: when compiling position independent code for a shared library, and taking the address of a protected function, you need to use the GOT. Unfortunately, gcc for the x86_64 target, surely the most widely used gcc target today, gets this wrong: This generally reveals itself as an error report when you go to create a shared library: relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against protected symbol `NAME' can not be used when making a shared object.

In any case, when the compiler gets it right, the dynamic linker has to fill in that GOT entry. In order to make the function pointers compare as equal, it has to fill in the entry with the address of the PLT in the executable (or the earlier shared library). But remember, this is a protected symbol, and protected symbols don’t support symbol interposition. So the dynamic linker must only use the PLT of the executable if the reference in the executable refers to the definition in the shared library. That means that when the dynamic linker sees a reloc against a protected symbol in a shared library, it has to do another walk through the executable and earlier shared libraries to see if any of them have a definition for the symbol, in which case the GOT entry must not be set to that earlier PLT entry but must instead be set to the address of the symbol in the shared library itself. This check has to be done for every symbol in the shared library.

Those extra symbol resolution passes means a slow down for every program which uses the shared library, and that is what is wrong with protected symbols.

So how do you get the compiler and linker speedups available by avoiding symbol interpositioning? Unfortunately, you have to give your symbols hidden visibility, which means that they can not be accessed from other modules. Assuming you do want them to be accessed, you need to define symbol aliases for the ones which should be publicly visible. That means that you need to use different names for the hidden symbols. This is awkward at best. Unfortunately I have nothing better to offer. ELF is designed to support symbol interpositioning, and there is no very good way to avoid that without causing other consequences.


  1. Sed said,

    January 22, 2010 @ 12:37 am

    What about using a table to store all used symbols? too time consuming to create? You wouldn’t have to do a new pass each time you see a symbol. Just lookup in the table.

    And about targets where comparing two different pointers and getting a YES even if it’s not physically true, which targets do you think about? I am interested in those, for I don’t understand some weird aspects of the C99 standard (well, draft, I don’t have the standard), those dealing with pointers’ semantics. I more or less understand aliasing and alignments constraints, but why a “int *” and a “double *” let’s say may have internal different representation? I mean, a pointer is an address, and all addresses are, well, addresses. That’s how I’ve seen it work on x86, powerPC, Sparc, early 8 bits computers, etc. So do you know about an architecture that motivates this design of the C99 language? (Yeah off topic, but very slightly :-))

  2. Ian Lance Taylor said,

    January 22, 2010 @ 7:50 am

    Building that table would burn a lot of memory in the dynamic linker, because it would have to add all the dynamic symbols, even the ones in libc. And it would only be useful for the unusual case of protected symbols. So there is a chicken-and-egg problem: protected symbols aren’t used because they slow down program startup time. The dynamic linker could speed up protected symbols, but only by slowing down every program. That’s not worth it, because protected symbols aren’t used.

    I didn’t mean to imply that there are targets where one can compare two different pointers and find them to be equal. I meant to refer to targets which use a different approach for taking the address of a function. E.g., RISC processors have special instructions for calling a function but typically require several instructions to take the address of a function. So they use a different approach even in the main executable. I think the dynamic linker could use that information to avoid the full symbol lookup of a protected symbol in many cases, because it would know reliably whether any module took the address of the function.

    While I haven’t thought through all the details, that technique could probably be used for any processor if the compiler and assembler generated a special relocation for taking the address of a function. Unfortunately, that would require an ABI change all the way through to the dynamic linker, and as such is unlikely to happen, since it would only help protected symbols and few people use them.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.