[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Bug binutils/29250] New: readelf erases CIE initial register state
From: |
amodra at gmail dot com |
Subject: |
[Bug binutils/29250] New: readelf erases CIE initial register state |
Date: |
Wed, 15 Jun 2022 12:56:47 +0000 |
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29250
Bug ID: 29250
Summary: readelf erases CIE initial register state
Product: binutils
Version: 2.39 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: amodra at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
From: Vsevolod Alekseyev <sevaa@sprynet.com>
I'm debugging a DWARF parser library. We are testing it against GNU readelf,
and we've found a discrepancy on the dump of the interpreted .eh_frame section
of a particular x86_64 ELF binary.
The binary's first FDE in .eh_frame has initial_location 0x1060, and the
following instructions:
DW_CFA_advance_loc 4 # Move PC by 4
DW_CFA_undefined 16 # Change the rule for R16 to undefined
The linked CIE marks R16 as the return address, and has the following
instructions:
DW_CFA_def_cfa 7, 8 # CFA is at R7+8)
DW_CFA_offset 16, 1 # Set the rule for R16 to
[CFA+1*data_aligment_factor])
The GNU readelf, if executed with --debug-dump=frames-interp, dumps the FDE
as follows:
00000018 0000000000000014 0000001c FDE cie=00000000
pc=0000000000001060..0000000000001086
LOC CFA ra
0000000000001060 rsp+8 u
0000000000001064 rsp+8 u
Meanwhile, the alternative parser thinks that at the range [0x1060-0x1064), the
rule for RA/R16 should be as inherited from the CIE, and it goes rsp+8.
I've debugged readelf (the latest master, as of 06/01/22), to that point.
There are two passes over the FDE instructions: one starting on dwarf.c:9296,
the other starting at dwarf.c:9442. On the first pass, when DW_CFA_undefined is
encountered, there is the following case statement:
READ_ULEB (reg, start, block_end);
if (frame_need_space (fc, reg) >= 0)
fc->col_type[reg] = DW_CFA_undefined;
break;
If I understand correctly, the intended purpose of the first pass is to
allocate enough memory in the fc->col_type and fc->col_offset arrays, and the
logic of this operator's handling was meant to be: if this register was not
mentioned before, allocate space for it, and reset its rule to undefined.
HOWEVER, if the register WAS mentioned before (e. g. in the CIE),
frame_need_space() returns 0, and the if() body executes anyway, and resets the
rule for the register to undefined, erasing the initial state as specified by
the CIE.
I think the if statement should go, instead, "if (frame_need_space (fc, reg) >
0)". Same for other register-rule-type operators on the first pass.
The binary can be seen at
https://github.com/eliben/pyelftools/issues/409#issuecomment-1136720254
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
- [Bug binutils/29250] New: readelf erases CIE initial register state,
amodra at gmail dot com <=
- [Bug binutils/29250] readelf erases CIE initial register state, amodra at gmail dot com, 2022/06/15
- [Bug binutils/29250] readelf erases CIE initial register state, amodra at gmail dot com, 2022/06/15
- [Bug binutils/29250] readelf erases CIE initial register state, cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org, 2022/06/15
- [Bug binutils/29250] readelf erases CIE initial register state, amodra at gmail dot com, 2022/06/15
- [Bug binutils/29250] readelf erases CIE initial register state, sevaa at sprynet dot com, 2022/06/20