From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: PR28977 tc-i386.c internal error in parse_register
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:39:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2614e201-d2a0-6e68-23f7-ea4c14700df0@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YjQ1ctJsSt4mA+p7@squeak.grove.modra.org>
On 18.03.2022 08:32, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 08:12:46AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.03.2022 07:56, Alan Modra via Binutils wrote:
>>> PR 28977
>>> * config/tc-i386.c (parse_register): Handle X_op not O_register
>>> as for a non-reg_section symbol. Simplify array bounds check.
>>
>> Hmm, isn't it that ...
>>
>>> --- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c
>>> +++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c
>>> @@ -12952,17 +12952,18 @@ parse_register (char *reg_string, char **end_op)
>>> {
>>
>> ... the if() right outside of context here is pointing at the actual
>> problem? Why would "s=%rdx % %rcx" result in a reg_section expression?
>> Imo this clearly ought to be expr_section.
>
> Perhaps, but we are off in the weeds anyway.
>
> The original fuzzer input had a completely crazy expression for "s".
> s=%ymm5%%%!%%%%!%%%%%%%\x1d%%%%%%%%%%%%%%��������������������������%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%!%ebp%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%M%%%%%%[s<��%[s<�����%%%%%��������������/+�������������%%%%[s<��%[s<�����%%%%'%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%;%%%%%%!%%%%!%%%%%%%%%%%%%#NO
>
> My testcase was a little tidier but still gives:
>
> mad.s: Error: invalid operands (*GAS `reg' section* and *GAS `reg' section* sections) for `%' when setting `s'
That's only with your change in place, I assume? I'm not seeing
this with your change not in place (i.e. on a slightly older
tree I'm working with).
> The aim of the patch is to stop an abort *before* we decide the
> expression is invalid. i386 parse_register was being called via
> md_parse_name in gas/expr.c:operand.
It still feels like your change is merely hiding a problem elsewhere.
Going from your example (and observing where the abort actually is
reported) I added a 3rd instance of x=s. Then the abort continues to
be reported on the 2nd instance. If things were working consistently,
I would expect it to happen either on the first instance or at the
end of the file (in this latter case the location reported would
simply be bogus).
I think the original know(e->X_op == O_register) was actually quite
appropriate when seeing a reg_section symbol come in. No reg_section
symbols violating this should ever be constructed, at least not for
x86. There might be architectures where such makes sense, albeit
code like this in expr.c:
else if (mode != expr_defer && segment == reg_section)
{
expressionP->X_op = O_register;
expressionP->X_add_number = S_GET_VALUE (symbolP);
}
makes me think such should never be put into existence. I seem to
have a vague recollection of, very long ago, having discussed with
you already the question of too little use of expr_section in the
course of expression evaluation (without any actual outcome as far
as changes to the code).
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-18 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-18 6:56 Alan Modra
2022-03-18 7:12 ` Jan Beulich
2022-03-18 7:32 ` Alan Modra
2022-03-18 9:39 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2022-03-18 12:03 ` Alan Modra
2022-03-21 16:59 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2614e201-d2a0-6e68-23f7-ea4c14700df0@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=amodra@gmail.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).