Created attachment 9803 [details] Crashing input Dear all, This bug was found with AFLGo, a directed version of AFL/AFLFast. Thanks also to Marcel Böhme. This bug was found on Ubuntu 14.04 64-bit & binutils was checkout from main repository at git://sourceware.org/git/binutils-gdb.git. Its commit is 53f7e8ea7fad1fcff1b58f4cbd74e192e0bcbc1d (Fri Feb 10 00:00:16 2017) To reproduce: Download the attached file - bug_2 readelf -da bug_2 Valgrind says: ==29176== Invalid read of size 8 ==29176== at 0x408B77: target_specific_reloc_handling (readelf.c:11638) ==29176== by 0x408B77: apply_relocations (readelf.c:12343) ==29176== by 0x4178B4: process_notes_at.part.19 (readelf.c:16279) ==29176== by 0x423D91: process_notes_at (readelf.c:16415) ==29176== by 0x423D91: process_note_sections (readelf.c:16526) ==29176== by 0x423D91: process_notes (readelf.c:16559) ==29176== by 0x423D91: process_object (readelf.c:16782) ==29176== by 0x402111: process_file (readelf.c:17154) ==29176== by 0x402111: main (readelf.c:17225) ==29176== Address 0x20052093a0 is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd ==29176== ==29176== ==29176== Process terminating with default action of signal 11 (SIGSEGV) ==29176== Access not within mapped region at address 0x20052093A0 ==29176== at 0x408B77: target_specific_reloc_handling (readelf.c:11638) ==29176== by 0x408B77: apply_relocations (readelf.c:12343) ==29176== by 0x4178B4: process_notes_at.part.19 (readelf.c:16279) ==29176== by 0x423D91: process_notes_at (readelf.c:16415) ==29176== by 0x423D91: process_note_sections (readelf.c:16526) ==29176== by 0x423D91: process_notes (readelf.c:16559) ==29176== by 0x423D91: process_object (readelf.c:16782) ==29176== by 0x402111: process_file (readelf.c:17154) ==29176== by 0x402111: main (readelf.c:17225) ASAN says ==30126==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address 0x61900000ee00 at pc 0x54aa2e bp 0x7ffcee43fc30 sp 0x7ffcee43fc28 READ of size 8 at 0x61900000ee00 thread T0 #0 0x54aa2d in target_specific_reloc_handling /home/ubuntu/thesis/subjects/binutils-newest/build-asan/binutils/../../binutils/readelf.c:11637 #1 0x52e6dc in apply_relocations /home/ubuntu/thesis/subjects/binutils-newest/build-asan/binutils/../../binutils/readelf.c:12343 #2 0x527e5f in process_notes_at /home/ubuntu/thesis/subjects/binutils-newest/build-asan/binutils/../../binutils/readelf.c:16279 #3 0x52616c in process_note_sections /home/ubuntu/thesis/subjects/binutils-newest/build-asan/binutils/../../binutils/readelf.c:16526 #4 0x4e1ec2 in process_notes /home/ubuntu/thesis/subjects/binutils-newest/build-asan/binutils/../../binutils/readelf.c:16559 #5 0x48d646 in process_object /home/ubuntu/thesis/subjects/binutils-newest/build-asan/binutils/../../binutils/readelf.c:16782 #6 0x488365 in process_file /home/ubuntu/thesis/subjects/binutils-newest/build-asan/binutils/../../binutils/readelf.c:17154 #7 0x4855c3 in main /home/ubuntu/thesis/subjects/binutils-newest/build-asan/binutils/../../binutils/readelf.c:17225 #8 0x7fef50e75f44 (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x21f44) #9 0x47ddfc in _start (/home/ubuntu/thesis/subjects/binutils-newest/build-asan/binutils/readelf+0x47ddfc)
binutils was built with ASAN using gcc-6.2 and clang-3.4. The configure command was: CC=clang CFLAGS="-DFORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector-all -fsanitize=undefined,address -fno-omit-frame-pointer -g -Wno-error" ../configure --disable-shared --disable-gdb --disable-libdecnumber --disable-readline --disable-sim
Another duplicate bug *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 21137 ***
Created attachment 9817 [details] attachment-54452-0.html Hi Nick, Thank you for quickly fixing the bugs I reported. 21136 looks totally different from 21137, both in call-stack and in crashing functions. I do see that 21136 shares something in common with 21139; however, the stack traces of these two reported bugs are also considerably different. Regards, Thuan On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:21 PM, nickc at redhat dot com < sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> wrote: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21136 > > Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------------- > Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED > CC| |nickc at redhat dot com > Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE > > --- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> --- > Another duplicate bug > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 21137 *** > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug.
Hi Thuan, > Thank you for quickly fixing the bugs I reported. 21136 looks totally > different from 21137, both in call-stack and in crashing functions. I do > see that 21136 shares something in common with 21139; however, the stack > traces of these two reported bugs are also considerably different. Sorry - that was my mistake. I should have ibndi *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 21139 ***
> Sorry - that was my mistake. I should have ibndi [Doh - hit send before I was ready]. What I meant to say was that you were correct. This bug is essentially a duplicate of 21139 not 21137. I have updated the Status accordingly. Cheers Nick