I'm looking for a fast way to check if a ELF binary is a shared object or a position independent executable. I think a can do that by checking the contained symbols / functions. I'm looking for a more efficient way of not having to read the complete file. I have to perform the check on different platforms, at least Android, Linux (32 and 64 bit).
I'm looking for a fast way to check if a ELF binary is a shared object or a position independend executable.
There is no way to check: a PIE executable is a shared object.
I think a can do that by checking the contained symbols / functions.
Symbols can be stripped, and once they are, you can't tell.
shared objects and executables they normally differ by the linked startup code
That's true: the PIE is normally linked with Scrt1.o, but a shared library is normally not. But there is nothing to prevent a shared library to be linked with Scrt1.o as well, and in a stripped binary even finding that startup code may be somewhat problematic.
If what you really want is to distinguish between a shared library and a PIE executable which you built yourself (rather than solving a general case of any shared library and any PIE), then checking for presence of PT_INTERP (readelf -l a.out | grep INTERP) is likely the easiest way to go: a PIE executable is guaranteed to have PT_INTERP, and shared libraries normally don't have it (libc.so.6 is a notable exception).
Try the elfutils and the included program eh-readelf:
eh-readelf --file-header $ELFFILE
showw you the file header and what kind of file it is:
...
Typ: EXEC (Executable file)
...
or
Typ: DYN (Shared object file)
In combination with a little sed line you should get the results you want.
Related
I'm having trouble understanding if/how to share code among several Fortran projects without building libraries or duplicating source code.
I am using Eclipse/Photran with the Intel compiler (ifort) on a linux system, but I believe I'm having a bigger conceptual problem with modules than with the specific tools.
Here's a simple example: In ~/workspace/cow I have a source directory (src) containing cow.f90 (the PROGRAM) and two modules m_graze and m_moo in m_graze.f90 and m_moo.f90, respectively. This project builds and links properly to create the executable 'cow'. The executable and modules (m_graze.mod and m_moo.mod) are stored in ~/workspace/cow/Debug and object files are stored under ~/workspace/cow/Debug/src
Later, I create ~/workplace/sheep and have src/sheep.f90 as the program and src/m_baa.f90 as the module m_baa. I want to 'use m_graze, only: ruminate' in sheep.f90 to get access to the ruminate() subroutine. I could just copy m_graze.f90 but that could lead to code getting out of sync and doesn't take into account any dependencies m_graze might have. For these reasons, I'd rather leave m_graze in the cow project and compile and link sheep.f90 against it.
If I try to compile the sheep project, I'll get an error like:
error #7002: Error in opening the compiled module file. Check INCLUDE paths. [M_GRAZE]
Under Properties:Project References for sheep, I can select the cow project. Under Properties:Fortran Build:Settings:Intel Compiler:Preprocessor I can add ~/workspace/cow/Debug (location of the module files) to the list of include directories so the compiler now finds the cow modules and compiles sheep.f90. However the linker dies with something like:
Building target: sheep
Invoking: Intel(R) Fortran Linker
ifort -L/home/me/workspace/cow/Debug -o "sheep" ./src/sheep.o
./src/sheep.o: In function `sheep':
/home/me/workspace/sheep/src/sheep.f90:11: undefined reference to `m_graze_mp_ruminate_'
This would normally be solved by adding libraries and library paths to the linker settings except there are no appropriate libraries to link to (this is Fortran, not C.)
The cow project was perfectly capable of compiling and linking together cow.f90, m_graze.f90 and m_moo.f90 into an executable. Yet while the sheep project can compile sheep.f90 and m_baa.f90 and can find the module m_graze.mod, it can't seem to find the symbols for m_graze even though all the requisite information is present on the system for it to do so.
It would seem to be an easy matter of configuration to get the linker portion of ifort to find the missing pieces and put them together but I have no idea what magic words need to be entered where in the Photran UI to make this happen.
I confess an utter lack of interest and competence in C and the C build process and I'd rather avoid the diversion of creating libraries (.a or .so) unless that's the only way to make this work.
Ultimately, I'm looking for a pure Fortran solution to this problem so I can keep a single copy of the source code and don't have to manually maintain a pile of custom Makefiles.
So can this be done?
Apologies if this has already been documented somewhere; Google is only showing me simple build examples, how to create modules, and how to link with existing libraries. There don't seem to be (m)any examples of code reuse with modules that don't involve duplicating source code.
Edit
As respondents have pointed out, the .mod files are necessary but not sufficient; either object code (in the form of m_graze.o) or static or shared libraries must be specified during the linking phase. The .mod files describe the interface to the object code/library but both are necessary to build the final executable.
For an oversimplified toy problem such as this, that's sufficient to answer the question as posed.
In a larger project with more complex dependencies (in my case, 80+KLOC of F90 linking to the MKL version of LAPACK95), the IDE or toolchain may lack sufficient automatic or user-interface facilities to make sharing a single canonical set of source files a viable strategy. The choice seems to be between risking duplicate source files getting out of sync, giving up many of the benefits of an IDE (i.e. avoiding manual creation of make/CMake/SCons files), or, in all likelihood, both. While a revision control system and good code organization can help, it's clear that sharing a single canonical set of source files among projects is far from easy given the current state of Eclipse.
Some background which I suspect you already know: Typically (including ifort) compiling the source code for a Fortran module results in two outputs - a "mod" file that contains a description of the Fortran entities that the module defines that the compiler needs to find whenever it sees a USE statement for the module, and object code for the linker that implements the procedures and variable storage, etc., that the module defines.
Your first error (the one you solved) is because the compiler couldn't find the mod file.
The second error is because the linker hasn't been told about the object code that implements the stuff that was in the source file with the module. I'm not an Eclipse user by any means, but a brute force way of specifying that is just to add the object file (xxxxx/Debug/m_graze.o) as an additional linker option (Fortran Build > Settings, under Intel Fortran Linker > Command Line). (Other tool chains have explicit "additional object file" properties for their link stage - there may well be a better way of doing this for the Intel chain.)
For more involved examples you would typically create a library out of the shared code. That's not really C specific, the only Fortran aspect is that the libraries archive of object code needs to be provided alongside the mod files that the Fortran compiler generates.
Yes the object code must be provided. E.g., when you install libnetcdf-dev in Debian (apt-get install libnetcdf-dev), there is a /usr/include/netcdf.mod file that is included.
You can now use all netcdf routines in your Fortran code. E.g.,
program main
use netcdf
...
end
but you'll have link to the netcdf shared (or static) library, i.e.,
gfortran -I/usr/include/ main.f90 -lnetcdff
However, as user MSB mentioned the mod file can only be used by gfortran that comes with the distribution (apt-get install gfortran). If you want to use any other compiler (even a different version that you may have installed yourself) then you'll have to build netcdf yourself using that particular compiler.
So creating a library is not a bad solution.
What are the differences between the byte code binary executables such as Java class files, Parrot bytecode files or CLR files and machine code executables such as ELF, Mach-O and PE.
what are the distinctive differences between the two?
such as the .text area in the ELF structure is equal to what part of the class file?
or they all have headers but the ELF and PE headers contain Architecture but the Class file does not
Java Class File
Elf file
PE File
Byte code is, as imulsion noted, an intermediate step, right before compilation into machine code. Because the last step is left to load time (and often runtime, as is the case with Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation, byte code is architecture independent: The runtime (CLR for .net or JVM for Java) is responsible for mapping the byte code opcodes to their underlying machine code representation.
By comparison, native code (Windows: PE, PE32+, OS X/iOS: Mach-O, Linux/Android/etc: ELF) is compiled code, suited for a particular architecture (Android/iOS: ARM, most else: Intel 32-bit (i386) or 64-bit). These are all very similar, but still require sections (or, in Mach-O parlance "Load Commands") to set up the memory structure of the executable as it becomes a process (Old DOS supported the ".com" format which was a raw memory image). In all the above, you can say , roughly, the following:
Sections with a "." are created by the compiler, and are "default" or expected to have default behavior
The executable has the main code section, usually called "text" or ".text". This is native code, which can run on the specific architecture
Strings are stored in a separate section. These are used for hard-coded output (what you print out) as well as symbol names.
Symbols - which are what the linker uses to put together the executable with its libraries (Windows: DLLs, Linux/Android: Shared Objects, OS X/iOS: .dylibs or frameworks) are stored in a separate section. Usually there is also a "PLT" (Procedure Linkage Table) which enables the compiler to simply put in stubs to the functions you call (printf, open, etc), that the linker can connect when the executable loads.
Import table (in Windows parlance.. In ELF this is a DYNAMIC section, in OS X this is a LC_LOAD_LIBRARY command) is used to declare additional libraries. If those aren't found when the executable is loaded, the load fails, and you can't run it.
Export table (for libraries/dylibs/etc) are the symbols which the library (or in Windows, even an .exe) can export so as to have others link with.
Constants are usually in what you see as the ".rodata".
Hope this helps. Really, your question was vague..
TG
Byte code is a 'halfway' step. So the Java compiler (javac) will turn the source code into byte code. Machine code is the next step, where the computer takes the byte code, turns it into machine code (which can be read by the computer) and then executes your program by reading the machine code. Computers cannot read source code directly, likewise compilers cannot translate immediately into machine code. You need a halfway step to make programs work.
Note that ELF binaries don't necessarily need to be machine/arch specific per se.
The interesting piece is the "interpreter" header field: it holds a path name to a loader program that's executed instead of the actual binary. This one then is responsible for loading the actual program, loading and linking libraries, etc. This is the way how eg. ld.so comes in.
Theoretically one could create an ELF binary that holds java bytecode (or a complete jar). This just needs some appropriate "interpreter" program which starts up a JVM and loads the code from the binary into it.
Not sure whether this actually has been done before, but certainly possible.
The same can be done w/ quite any non-native code.
It also could serve for direct multiarch support via some VM like qemu:
Let the target platform (libc+linker scripts) put the arch name into the interpreter program name (eg. /lib/ld.so.x86_64, /lib/ld.so.armhf, ...).
Then, on a particular arch (eg. x86_64), the one with native arch name will point to the original ld.so, while the others point to some special one that calls up something like qemu-system-XXX.
Does small embedded system without RTOS/OS uses dynamic/shared libraries. my understanding is that its very tough to use it and will be not productive.
If we are calling an API multiple times which is present in a static library. Does API code will be placed at every call location like macro expansion or code/text will be common for all calls. I think code/text will be common.
If I have made a static library for a .c files which has multiple API's and I am statically linking it with main file and in main file only one API has been called so my question is does whole library is included in final .bin or only particular API code.
from above questions you can assume that I am missing fundamentals itself so can anyone please provide the related links to brush up these.
Regards
[edit]
I have tried following things
addition.c module
`int addition(int a,int b)`
`{`
`int result;`
`result = a + b;`
`return result;`
`}`
`size addition.o`
23 0 0 23 17 addition.o
multiplication.c module
`int multiplication(int a, int b)`
`{`
`int result;`
`result = a * b;`
`return result;`
`}`
`size multiplication.o`
21 0 0 21 15 multiplication.o
created object file of both and put in archieve
ar cr libarith.a addition.o multiplication.o
then statically linked to my main application
example.c module
`#include "header.h"`
`#include <stdio.h>`
`1:int main()`
`2:{`
`3:int result;`
`4:result = addition(1,2);`
`5:printf("addition result is : %d\n",result);`
`6:result = multiplication(3,2);`
`7:printf("multiplication result is : %d\n",result);`
`8:return 0;`
`9:}`
gcc -static example.c -L. -larith -o example
size of example
511141 1928 7052 520121 7efb9 example
commented line number 6 of example.c
and again linked
gcc -static example.c -L. -larith -o example
size of example
511109 1928 7052 520089 7ef99 example
32 bytes of difference between above two
thats mean addition.o is not included in example
merged both modules addition.c and multiplication.c as addmult.c as below
int addition(int a,int b)
{
int result;
result = a + b;
return result;
}
int multiplication(int a, int b)
{
int result;
result = a * b;
return result;
}
created object file and put in archieve
before doing that i have deleted previous archieve
ar cr libarith.a addmult.o
now commented line number 6 of example.c
gcc -static example.c -L. -larith -o example
size example
511093 1928 7052 520073 7ef89 example
uncommented line nmber 6 of example.c
size example
511141 1928 7052 520121 7efb9 example
My question is in both cases if both functions are called final text size is same but if only one function is called then there is difference of 16
but multiplication.o size is 23 so definitly it has been not included but how we will justify 16.
If i am missing some fundamental itself ?
To dynamically load and link a library at runtime requires code to perform the load/link operation. That capability is normally part of an operating system. Moreover in a system without mass-storage of some kind, dynamic linking would not have any benefits since the dynamically linked code would have to exist in memory in any case so may as well have been statically linked.
To answer the second part of your question, a static library is simply a collection of object files in an archive. The linker will only extract and link the object code necessary to resolve symbols referenced in the executable as a whole. Some smart linkers can discard unused functions from within an object file, but you should not rely on that.
So by linking a static library you are not including all the unused code in the library. You can probably tell that by comparing the size of all your library files with the size of the executable binary - you will probably see that your executable is far smaller than the sum of the sizes of the libraries linked. Also your linker will have an option to create a map file which will tell you exactly what code has been included, and if it has a cross-reference output facility, what code references or is referenced by what.
If you are building your own static libraries, or even your own non-library code, it will pay to ensure good granularity at the object file level. For example if an object file contains two functions, one used and one unused, most linkers will have no choice but to include both, whereas if the functions are defined in separate compilation units (source files), then they will be in separate object files (even when collated into a library) and can be separately linked.
If you really have a embedded system without any operating system, then your hardware has essentially a fixed software, which you can change only by physical means (e.g. a soldering iron, or plugging something, etc...). In that case, that software runs on the "bare iron" and is doing somehow what an OS is providing (it is managing the physical resources and interacts directly with the I/O ports by appropriate machine instruction).
In particular, an embedded system without any OS cannot have any kind of dynamic libraries, because by definition these libraries need to be inside some files (on the embedded processor), and to have files you need an operating system.
The exact definition of what exactly is an operating system is debatable and fuzzy; I believe that providing a file system is one of the roles of most current OSes
Since shared libraries (or static libraries) are libraries sitting inside some files, you cannot have them without an OS. Something which provide files is by definition an operating system.
Perhaps you are using a cross-development chain to develop your embedded software. If you want to get something which runs on the bare metal, your chain has to ultimately give a single binary image which you can flash into a ROM, then solder or plug that ROM -or transfer somehow physically- in your embedded hardware (some tools enable you to flash an entire self contained processor).
I believe you might be confused, and you should read more about operating systems, kernels, the linux kernel, file systems, syscalls, RTOS, linkers & loaders, cross-compilers, microcontrollers, shared libraries, dynamic linkers ....
As Clifford suggested in comments, you could have an embedded system with some file system and some dynamic linker; in my view that would make an embryonic operating system, but it is a debatable matter of definition.
Notice that making a dynamic linker might not be an easy task (you'll need to do relocation); you could either make a generic ELF dynamic loader, or you could restrict the form of the dynamically loaded modules, and perhaps use your specific ld script to generate them.
You already have all the fundamentals you need. Without an operating system, mass storage (disc, filesystem, etc) and mulitple/many different programs that can take advantage of the shared library it doesnt make any sense. You dont save anything and it probably costs you a little more if you were to fake it enough to use a shared library in a fixed bare metal environment.
You mentioned having codesourcery, how do you learn these things? You disassemble your binaries and see what the compiler did. Does it link the entire gcc library because you used one divide? Does it link the entire C library because you used one function (does it even work to try to link a C library function, many have system calls to an operating system which you have to resolve). Start by using a simple divide in a very simple function (needs to be generic)
unsigned int fun ( unsigned int a, unsigned int b )
{
return(a/b);
}
DO NOT call that function with fixed constants and do not call it from the same .c file, the best thing would be to simply add that function as is, and do nothing else with it just have it sit there. You may hit problems even trying to compile it, once you do, disassemble and see what the compiler did with it, see if the entire gcc library was added or just the code for that one function.
You cant trust any old web page or resource as it may not be the same tools you are using and may be out dated, the compiler you are using right now is the one that matters, right now, no other. And the answers are all right there in front of you.
No, they dont use dynamic libraries, the functions needed are linked in as needed. The optimizer may choose to inline some code, but in general the code for each function is in one place and each call to it is a call, it is not like a macro, in general. Again the optimizer may choose otherwise for performance reasons (small enough functions that dont consume too much memory and are small enough that the code required to make a function call is excessive compared to the function itself. Also that function needs to be in the same optimization space, for gcc this is the same .c file, for llvm this could be any code in the project.
I have some examples, cortex-m and others, bare metal. http://github.com/dwelch67 you may find some that may help answer your questions, examine for example that the compiler will implement a public function like the one above AND inline it when used. If you declare the function as static, then the optimizer, if it inlines, doesnt need to implement the function in the binary. if you make a call to a function like that in the same .c file, for example
c = fun(10,5);
there is a good chance that the optimizer if used, will replace that code with
c = 2;
and not perform the divide at all.
Can someone here tell me if there is something similar to LD_PRELOAD on recent versions of AIX? More specifically I need to intercept calls from my binary to time(), returning a constant time, for testing purposes.
AIX 5.3 introduced the LDR_PRELOAD (for 32-bit programs) and LDR_PRELOAD64 (for 64-bit programs) variables. They are analoguous to LD_PRELOAD on Linux. Both are colon-separated lists of libraries, and symbols will be pre-emptively loaded from the listed shared objects before anything else.
For example, if you have a shared object foo.so:
LDR_PRELOAD=foo.so
If you use archives, use the AIX style to specify the object within the archive:
LDR_PRELOAD="bar.a(shr.so)"
And separate multiple entries with a colon:
LDR_PRELOAD="foo.so:bar.a(shr.so)"
AIX 5L uses the LDR_PRELOAD variable.
Not that I'm aware of. Closest thing we've done (with malloc/free for debugging) is to
create a new library file with just the functions desired (same name as original).
place it in a different directory to the original.
make a dependency from our library file to the original.
change the LD_LIBRARY_PATH (or SHLIB_PATH?) to put our library first in the search chain.
That way, our functions got picked up first by the loader, any we didn't supply were provided by the original.
This was a while ago. AIX 5L is supposed to be much more like Linux (hence the L) so it may be able to do exactly what you require.
Alternatively, if you have the source, munge the calls to time() with mytime() and provide your function. You're not testing exactly the same software but the differences for that sort of minimal change shouldn't matter.
I'm producing a hex file to run on an ARM processor which I want to keep below 32K. It's currently a lot larger than that and I wondered if someone might have some advice on what's the best approach to slim it down?
Here's what I've done so far
So I've run 'size' on it to determine how big the hex file is.
Then 'size' again to see how big each of the object files are that link to create the hex files. It seems the majority of the size comes from external libraries.
Then I used 'readelf' to see which functions take up the most memory.
I searched through the code to see if I could eliminate calls to those functions.
Here's where I get stuck, there's some functions which I don't call directly (e.g. _vfprintf) and I can't find what calls it so I can remove the call (as I think I don't need it).
So what are the next steps?
Response to answers:
As I can see there are functions being called which take up a lot of memory. I cannot however find what is calling it.
I want to omit those functions (if possible) but I can't find what's calling them! Could be called from any number of library functions I guess.
The linker is working as desired, I think, it only includes the relevant library files. How do you know if only the relevant functions are being included? Can you set a flag or something for that?
I'm using GCC
General list:
Make sure that you have the compiler and linker debug options disabled
Compile and link with all size options turned on (-Os in gcc)
Run strip on the executable
Generate a map file and check your function sizes. You can either get your linker to generate your map file (-M when using ld), or you can use objdump on the final executable (note that this will only work on an unstripped executable!) This won't actually fix the problem, but it will let you know of the worst offenders.
Use nm to investigate the symbols that are called from each of your object files. This should help in finding who's calling functions that you don't want called.
In the original question was a sub-question about including only relevant functions. gcc will include all functions within every object file that is used. To put that another way, if you have an object file that contains 10 functions, all 10 functions are included in your executable even if one 1 is actually called.
The standard libraries (eg. libc) will split functions into many separate object files, which are then archived. The executable is then linked against the archive.
By splitting into many object files the linker is able to include only the functions that are actually called. (this assumes that you're statically linking)
There is no reason why you can't do the same trick. Of course, you could argue that if the functions aren't called the you can probably remove them yourself.
If you're statically linking against other libraries you can run the tools listed above over them too to make sure that they're following similar rules.
Another optimization that might save you work is -ffunction-sections, -Wl,--gc-sections, assuming you're using GCC. A good toolchain will not need to be told that, though.
Explanation: GNU ld links sections, and GCC emits one section per translation unit unless you tell it otherwise. But in C++, the nodes in the dependecy graph are objects and functions.
On deeply embedded projects I always try to avoid using any standard library functions. Even simple functions like "strtol()" blow up the binary size. If possible just simply avoid those calls.
In most deeply embedded projects you don't need a versatile "printf()" or dynamic memory allocation (many controllers have 32kb or less RAM).
Instead of just using "printf()" I use a very simple custom "printf()", this function can only print numbers in hexadecimal or decimal format not more. Most data structures are preallocated at compile time.
Andrew EdgeCombe has a great list, but if you really want to scrape every last byte, sstrip is a good tool that is missing from the list and and can shave off a few more kB.
For example, when run on strip itself, it can shave off ~2kB.
From an old README (see the comments at the top of this indirect source file):
sstrip is a small utility that removes the contents at the end of an
ELF file that are not part of the program's memory image.
Most ELF executables are built with both a program header table and a
section header table. However, only the former is required in order
for the OS to load, link and execute a program. sstrip attempts to
extract the ELF header, the program header table, and its contents,
leaving everything else in the bit bucket. It can only remove parts of
the file that occur at the end, after the parts to be saved. However,
this almost always includes the section header table, and occasionally
a few random sections that are not used when running a program.
Note that due to some of the information that it removes, a sstrip'd executable is rumoured to have issues with some tools. This is discussed more in the comments of the source.
Also... for an entertaining/crazy read on how to make the smallest possible executable, this article is worth a read.
Just to double-check and document for future reference, but do you use Thumb instructions? They're 16 bit versions of the normal instructions. Sometimes you might need 2 16 bit instructions, so it won't save 50% in code space.
A decent linker should take just the functions needed. However, you might need compiler & linke settings to package functions for individual linking.
Ok so in the end I just reduced the project to it's simplest form, then slowly added files one by one until the function that I wanted to remove appeared in the 'readelf' file. Then when I had the file I commented everything out and slowly add things back in until the function popped up again. So in the end I found out what called it and removed all those calls...Now it works as desired...sweet!
Must be a better way to do it though.
To answer this specific need:
•I want to omit those functions (if possible) but I can't find what's
calling them!! Could be called from any number of library functions I
guess.
If you want to analyze your code base to see who calls what, by whom a given function is being called and things like that, there is a great tool out there called "Understand C" provided by SciTools.
https://scitools.com/
I have used it very often in the past to perform static code analysis. It can really help to determine library dependency tree. It allows to easily browse up and down the calling tree among other things.
They provide a limited time evaluation, then you must purchase a license.
You could look at something like executable compression.