Re: RFC: Should the linker warn about and/or control the propagation of audit libraries ?

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 4:28 AM Matt Rice <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 3:17 AM Nick Clifton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> >   I am using an AI tool to look for potential security issues in the
> >   binutils sources.  (Note - I am not using the tool to fix any
> >   problems, just report them).  It has raised an interesting issue:
> >
> >     The linker automatically reads DT_AUDIT entries from all
> >     input shared libraries and adds them as DT_DEPAUDIT entries
> >     in the output binary, with no warning.  DT_DEPAUDIT causes
> >     ld.so to load the named audit library at runtime, which can
> >     intercept all symbol resolutions via the rtld-audit interface
> >     (la_symbind, la_pltenter, etc.).
> >
> >     A malicious shared library provided as a dependency (e.g.,
> >     through a compromised package repository) can cause all
> >     binaries linked against it to automatically load an attacker
> >     controlled audit library at runtime, without any special
> >     linker flags and with no diagnostic output.  The user never
> >     requested this — it is silently introduced in the output.
> >
> >   I am wonder what, if anything, we should do about this.  The obvious
> >   thing to do would be to add a new command line option, something like:
> >
> >     --audit-library-propogation=[default|silent|warn|refuse]
> >
> >   which would either silently propagate the libraries (ie the current
> >   behaviour) or copy them, but also issue a warning message when it does
> >   so, or refuse to copy them and issue error messages instead.  The
> >   default behaviour could also be controlled by a configure time option.
> >
> >   Is this going too far ?  Would it even be helpful ?  What do you think.
> >
>
> I didn't really comment in my previous message about the command line option,
> In my case where I had basically a system audit library which made linking work
> for anything using framework style linking via adding an la_objsearch
> that worked
> with relative paths, it would have been pretty annoying to see warnings.
>
> I would have leaned towards some way to selectively disable it for
> known libraries
> like `--allow-audit-library-propagation=/path/to/libfoobar-audit` or
> even `-lfoobar-audit`?
> while still not disabling the warning entirely. Anyhow I'm pretty
> skeptical of boolean on/off
> switches, and would lean towards selectively disabling it for a
> specific context.
>

One last thing, on solaris the rtld implementation if I recall
correctly was that for setuid/setgid binaries
these libraries were only loaded from a "trusted location" underneath
`/lib/secure/`.
You could consider some kind of trusted location under which you don't
emit the propagation limit.
That would have worked alternately for my case where I had a system
wide audit library which was commonly linked.

> > Cheers
> >   Nick
> >
> >