From fae3d8ff9fc547d879aa64b7d3f89ed7323a7e1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joel Brobecker Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 08:25:20 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: stricter __stack_chk_guard check during prologue analysis We are trying to insert a breakpoint on line 4 for the following Ada code. 3 procedure STR is 4 XX : String (1 .. Blocks.Sz) := (others => 'X'); -- STOP 5 K : Integer; 6 begin 7 K := 13; The code generated on ARM (-march=armv7-m) starts like this: (gdb) disass str'address Dump of assembler code for function _ada_str: --# Line str.adb:3 0x08000014 <+0>: push {r4, r7, lr} 0x08000016 <+2>: sub sp, #28 0x08000018 <+4>: add r7, sp, #0 0x0800001a <+6>: mov r3, sp 0x0800001c <+8>: mov r4, r3 --# Line str.adb:4 0x0800001e <+10>: ldr r3, [pc, #84] ; (0x8000074 <_ada_str+96>) 0x08000020 <+12>: ldr r3, [r3, #0] 0x08000022 <+14>: str r3, [r7, #20] 0x08000024 <+16>: ldr r3, [r7, #20] [...] When computing the address related to str.adb:4, GDB correctly resolves it to 0x0800001e first, but then considers the next 3 instructions as being part of the prologue because it thinks they are part of stack-protector code. As a result, instead of inserting the breakpoint at line 4, it skips those instruction and consequently the rest of the instructions until the next line start, which his line 7. The stack-protector code is expected to start like this... ldr Rn, .Label .... .Lable: .word __stack_chk_guard ... but the implementation actually accepts a sequence where the ldr location points to an address for which there is no symbol. It only aborts if the address points to a symbol which is not __stack_chk_guard. Since the __stack_chk_guard symbol is always expected to exist when used (it lives in .dynsym), this patch fixes the issue by requiring that the ldr gets the address of the __stack_chk_guard symbol. If the address could not be resolved, then it rejects the sequence as being stack-protector code. gdb/ChangeLog: arm-tdep.c (arm_skip_stack_protector): Return early if address loaded by first "ldr" instruction does not have a corresponding minimal symbol. Update comment. Tested on arm-eabi using AdaCore's testsuite. --- gdb/arm-tdep.c | 9 ++++----- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/arm-tdep.c b/gdb/arm-tdep.c index e2559ec..172e54f 100644 --- a/gdb/arm-tdep.c +++ b/gdb/arm-tdep.c @@ -1306,11 +1306,10 @@ arm_skip_stack_protector(CORE_ADDR pc, struct gdbarch *gdbarch) return pc; stack_chk_guard = lookup_minimal_symbol_by_pc (addr); - /* If name of symbol doesn't start with '__stack_chk_guard', this - instruction sequence is not for stack protector. If symbol is - removed, we conservatively think this sequence is for stack protector. */ - if (stack_chk_guard.minsym - && strncmp (MSYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (stack_chk_guard.minsym), + /* ADDR must correspond to a symbol whose name is __stack_chk_guard. + Otherwise, this sequence cannot be for stack protector. */ + if (stack_chk_guard.minsym == NULL + || strncmp (MSYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (stack_chk_guard.minsym), "__stack_chk_guard", strlen ("__stack_chk_guard")) != 0) return pc; -- 1.9.1