[pauthabielf64] Define R_AARCH64_AUTH_TLSDESC_CALL.

[smithp35]

The TLSDESC sequence for accessing an authenticated pointer is similar to the traditional TLSDESC sequence. As pointer signing must be done at run-time there are much more limited opportunities to relax a TLSDESC AUTH, we introduce a R_AARCH64_AUTH_TLSDESC_CALL relocation that permits a static linker to transform the blraa to a nop, when relaxation is possible.

A new relocation code has been introduced rather than reusing R_AARCH64_TLSDESC_CALL so that a static linker can assume that the destination symbol is signed, without having to derive it from other R_AARCH64_TLSDESC_* relocations.

TLSDESC sequence

adrp x0, :tlsdesc:v //R_AARCH64_TLSDESC_ADR_PAGE21
ldr x1, [x0, #:tlsdesc_lo12:v] //R_AARCH64_TLSDESC_LD64_LO12
add x0, x0, #:tlsdesc_lo12:v //R_AARCH64_TLSDESC_ADD_LO12
.tlsdesccall var //R_AARCH64_TLSDESC_CALL
blr x1

TLSDESC AUTH sequence

adrp x0, :tlsdesc_auth:v //R_AARCH64_AUTH_TLSDESC_ADR_PAGE21
ldr x16, [x0, #:tlsdesc_auth_lo12:v]//R_AARCH64_AUTH_TLSDESC_LD64_LO12
add x0, x0, #:tlsdesc_auth_lo12:v //R_AARCH64_AUTH_TLSDESC_ADD_LO12
.tlsdescauthcall v //R_AARCH64_AUTH_TLSDESC_CALL
blraa x16, x0

fixes #393

[kovdan01]

Thanks @smithp35!

Just for transparency - PRs implementing support in llvm-project:

• backend: [PAC][ELF] Support R_AARCH64_AUTH_TLSDESC_CALL relocation llvm/llvm-project#198327
• lld linker: [PAC][lld] Do not emit AUTH relocs against undef weak non-preemptible symbols llvm/llvm-project#194636

[jrtc27]

#393 (comment) gives this as blraa x16, x0 instead?

[smithp35]

Thanks for spotting. Will update.

[jrtc27]

If the resolver is returning a (potentially between distinct allocations) offset from TP, wouldn't this cause a change in behaviour from giving "NULL" to giving "TP"? At least within FreeBSD our normal AArch64 TLSDESC resolver for undefined weak symbols is to return -TP(+A) so adding it to TP gives NULL(+A). I know undefined weak TLS objects are historically very cursed and break in all kinds of ways, but this would be a regression over non-PAuth TLSDESC, I think.

[jrtc27]

(This also loses the addend entirely)

[smithp35]

This is a good point, @kovdan01 is your TLSDESC resolver function for an undefined weak capable of returning -TP? I believe AArch64 glibc does this too for undefined weak TLS symbols.

I think this would be preferable to relaxing the sequence to 0 as currently that 0 would get added to TP, which would not result in a value of 0 for an undefined weak.

There's always the possibility of altering the TLSDESC sequence of checking for 0 before adding to TP as 0 isn't a valid offset (first offset is TCB size + alignment padding) which is a minimum of 16. However this seems worse than the resolver.

As an aside I've not been able to create a TLSDESC sequence with a non-zero addend from some simple compiled code. Always seems like the TLSDESC calculates the address of the symbol, then does an addition, or load with immediate offset instead.

[jrtc27]

Oh, that may be true in practice, just like GOT entries typically don't actually have addends (except when turned to relative ones, of course) as it's annoying to have potentially multiple entries per symbol to track in the linker.

[kovdan01]

@kovdan01 is your TLSDESC resolver function for an undefined weak capable of returning -TP? I believe AArch64 glibc does this too for undefined weak TLS symbols.

@smithp35 Yes, glibc does this, and we match that behavior in our PoC reference musl implementation - see https://github.com/access-softek/musl/blob/v1.2.5-pauth-rev2025-11-21/src/ldso/aarch64/tlsdesc.S#L63-L70

[smithp35]

I've fixed the typos and added a note that when 0 is added to the TP it will point at the thread control block.

Do we still need this? EDIT, yes as on other platforms there may be other relaxations possible.

[smithp35]

Reading through https://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/writeups/TLS/RFC-TLSDESC-ARM.txt again. There is a relaxable sequence that could be used when static linking (so we know that the weak reference won't be defined). In effect this is inlining the resolver function that returns -TP

mrs x0, TPIDR_EL0
neg x0, x0 // alias of sub x0, xzr, x0
nop
nop

[smithp35]

I think I'll move the details about the relaxation to a separate document in the design-documents folder.

I think it is platform specific choice of whether both fields of the TLS descriptor are signed. If only the resolver function address is signed then more relaxations are possible.

Likely to be next week before I can do that.

[jrtc27]

Well, it's not about whether the second word of the descriptor is signed. The generated code never uses that, either it passes a pointer to it as an opaque blob to the resolver or it relaxes the entire sequence so there is no descriptor to sign? The question is whether the TLS data is being signed like globals can be, and therefore whether &tls_var - TP is the same for all threads or differs in the high bits due to signing. If the data isn't signed, you can just relax to that constant (which will be the same as non-PAuth, and is either an LE immediate or an IE run-time constant), it's only if the data is signed that IE/LE are fundamentally broken?

[smithp35]

Thanks for the comment. I'll probably just take the rationale/relaxation bits out of the main document for now until I've got the time to work through this slowly.

Reading through the initial issue again #393. I think I've put too much weight on the comment:

Broader relaxations (such as GD->IE or GD->LE with non-statically-known-NULL symbols) are not possible because pointer authentication requires signing at program start-up.

I've missed the non-statically-known-NULL symbols part and in my haste reading. I had been trying to reconcile why other relaxations weren't possible with the code sequence the compiler uses for TLSDESC and a signed GOT.

As an aside:

Empirically using: clang --target=aarch64-linux -march=armv8.3-a -S -O2 tlsdesc.c -o - -fptrauth-elf-got -mabi=pauthtest with a trivial __thread int x; int val() { return x; }

I get:

        pacibsp
        stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!           // 16-byte Folded Spill
        mov     x29, sp
        adrp    x0, :tlsdesc_auth:x
        ldr     x16, [x0, :tlsdesc_auth_lo12:x]
        add     x0, x0, :tlsdesc_auth_lo12:x
        blraa   x16, x0
        mrs     x8, TPIDR_EL0
        ldr     w0, [x8, x0]
        ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #16             // 16-byte Folded Reload
        retab

If I'm reading that correctly, the return value from the TLS resolver function isn't signed. Nor is the value of x. It looks like the only thing that is signed is the descriptor in the GOT.

That looks relaxable in principle, although maybe not in practice to initial exec. I'd expect if it were initial exec the (&tls_var - TP) would be signed in the GOT, there are enough spare instructions and registers to extract the unsigned (&tls_var - TP), but there aren't enough spare instructions to test whether the authenticate failed, which I believe is a requirement for -fptrauth-traps (for systems without FEAT_FPAC).

[smithp35]

I've split out the commentary/rationale about TLS into a separate design document based on my understanding of how TLS is being used today, and what could be done in a different signing-schema (defined separately from the PAuthABI).

[jrtc27]

Thanks, a lot clearer to me now as to what this is actually trying to achieve and how. Some comments inline.

[jrtc27]

and DTPREL

[smithp35]

ACK

[jrtc27]

I think a stronger reason these days is because the traditional one is legacy so a new ABI should just follow the new approach? Clang supports traditional for a bunch of architectures so adding it for AArch64 would be straightforward.

[smithp35]

ACK

[jrtc27]

Maybe reiterate "from the base ABI" like a few paragraphs above to be clearer it's unchanged?

[smithp35]

ACK

[jrtc27]

"..., which would require AUTH variant static and dynamic relocations to be defined for Initial Exec"?

[smithp35]

ACK, have added that in.

[jrtc27]

I feel this comma hurts legibility, as the "and" relates to the "when" rather than the whole clause? At least, I had to backtrack in my head to parse it properly.

[smithp35]

Removed the comma.

[jrtc27]

For this hypothetical support would you not need auth somewhere in the modifiers(?) to get the right relocation, like :got_auth(_lo12): (presumably :gottprel_auth(_lo12):)?

[smithp35]

Yes, I've added in auth to match the other ones.

[jrtc27]

This should probably have a very brief outline of the cases discussed in the design doc and refer to it, rather than only list undefined weak non-preemptible symbols as the case that can be relaxed?

[smithp35]

I've removed the part about undefined weak, thought I'd done that already but my eyes were deceiving me.

I've replaced it with a reference to the design document.

[smithp35]

Thanks very much for the review, and apologies for the delay in responding. I'll upload a new version.

[smithp35]

ACK

[smithp35]

ACK

[smithp35]

ACK

[smithp35]

ACK, have added that in.

[smithp35]

Removed the comma.

[smithp35]

Yes, I've added in auth to match the other ones.

[smithp35]

I've removed the part about undefined weak, thought I'd done that already but my eyes were deceiving me.

I've replaced it with a reference to the design document.

[jrtc27]

nit:

Suggested change

	relaxations is available in the `PAUTHABITLS`_ design document.
	relaxations, is available in the `PAUTHABITLS`_ design document.

[smithp35]

ACK, have adopted.