File gdb-arm-remove-thumb-bit-in-arm_adjust_breakpoi... of Package gdb

Overview Repositories Revisions Requests Users Attributes Meta

File gdb-arm-remove-thumb-bit-in-arm_adjust_breakpoint_ad.patch of Package gdb (Revision 621025028a31b4a47c7b3d811c18a153)

Currently displaying revision 621025028a31b4a47c7b3d811c18a153 , Show latest

From 51a5415b3313470cb62fda7ad6762fc1c41c8cbd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2023 11:11:18 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] gdb/arm: remove thumb bit in arm_adjust_breakpoint_address

When compiling gdb with -fsanitize=address on ARM, I get a crash in test
gdb.arch/arm-disp-step.exp, reproduced easily with:

$ ./gdb -nx -q --data-directory=data-directory testsuite/outputs/gdb.arch/arm-disp-step/arm-disp-step -ex "break *test_call_end"
    Reading symbols from testsuite/outputs/gdb.arch/arm-disp-step/arm-disp-step...
    =================================================================
    ==23295==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address 0xb4a14fd1 at pc 0x01a48871 bp 0xbeab8490 sp 0xbeab8494

Since it doesn't require running the program, it can be reproduced locally on a
dev machine other than ARM, after acquiring the test binary.

The length of the allocate buffer `buf` is 1, and we try to extract an
integer of size 2 from it.  The length of 1 comes from the subtraction
`bpaddr - boundary`.  Normally, on ARM, all instructions are aligned on
a multiple of 2, so it's weird for this subtraction to result in 1.  In
this case, boundary comes from the result of find_pc_partial_function
returning 0x549:

(gdb) p/x bpaddr
    $2 = 0x54a
    (gdb) p/x boundary
    $3 = 0x549
    (gdb) p/x bpaddr - boundary
    $4 = 0x1

0x549 is the address of the test_call_subr label, 0x548, with the thumb
bit enabled.  Before doing some math with the address, I think we need
to strip the thumb bit, like is done elsewhere (for instance for bpaddr
earlier in the same function).

I wonder if find_pc_partial_function should do that itself, in order to
return an address that is suitable for arithmetic.  In any case, that
would be a change with a broad impact, so for now just fix the issue
locally.

After the patch:

$ ./gdb -nx -q --data-directory=data-directory testsuite/outputs/gdb.arch/arm-disp-step/arm-disp-step -ex "break *test_call_end"
    Reading symbols from testsuite/outputs/gdb.arch/arm-disp-step/arm-disp-step...
    Breakpoint 1 at 0x54a: file /home/smarchi/src/binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/arm-disp-step.S, line 103.

Change-Id: I74fc458dbea0d2c1e1f5eadd90755188df089288
Approved-By: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
---
 gdb/arm-tdep.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/arm-tdep.c b/gdb/arm-tdep.c
index 21dad198dc7..e61342f3ccb 100644
--- a/gdb/arm-tdep.c
+++ b/gdb/arm-tdep.c
@@ -5340,9 +5340,12 @@ arm_adjust_breakpoint_address (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR bpaddr)
 
   bpaddr = gdbarch_addr_bits_remove (gdbarch, bpaddr);
 
-  if (find_pc_partial_function (bpaddr, NULL, &func_start, NULL)
-      && func_start > boundary)
-    boundary = func_start;
+  if (find_pc_partial_function (bpaddr, NULL, &func_start, NULL))
+    {
+      func_start = gdbarch_addr_bits_remove (gdbarch, func_start);
+      if (func_start > boundary)
+	boundary = func_start;
+    }
 
   /* Search for a candidate IT instruction.  We have to do some fancy
      footwork to distinguish a real IT instruction from the second

base-commit: eafca1ce3d589c731927e5481199db715bcbeff3
-- 
2.35.3

Places

File gdb-arm-remove-thumb-bit-in-arm_adjust_breakpoint_ad.patch of Package gdb (Revision 621025028a31b4a47c7b3d811c18a153)

Places