This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: Debugging MIPS PIE executables


Felix Radensky <felix.radensky@broadcom.com> writes:
> Hi Mattew
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matthew Fortune [mailto:Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 11:10 AM
> > To: Felix Radensky; binutils@sourceware.org
> > Subject: RE: Debugging MIPS PIE executables
> >
> > Felix Radensky <felix.radensky@broadcom.com> writes:
> > > Hi Matthew,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Matthew Fortune [mailto:Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 11:10 AM
> > > > To: Felix Radensky; binutils@sourceware.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Debugging MIPS PIE executables
> > > >
> > > > Hi Felix,
> > > >
> > > > Felix Radensky <felix.radensky@broadcom.com> writes:
> > > > > I was wondering if any progress was made to resolve the problem
> > > > > discussed in the following threads:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2013-06/msg00183.html
> > > > > https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2014-10/msg00200.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Are there any experimental patches for binutils/gdb/glibc that
> I
> > > can
> > > > > try ? PIE executables are must in many security-conscious
> > > > > projects, and the lack of ability to debug them is a serious
> problem.
> > > >
> > > > This request has come up a few times again recently and I am
> > > > hoping
> > > to
> > > > submit patches for this in the coming week. I still have not
> > > > managed to build a PIE version of glibc which is a bit of a
> > > > blocker. I'm currently trying to use HJ's recent patches to
> > > > support PIE by default from GCC but now have link assertions in
> > > > glibc instead of reloc
> > > failures.
> > > >
> > > > I have binutils and gdb patches that have been used with bionic
> > > > but they still need some cleaning up.
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for a prompt reply. I'm looking forward to test your
> > > patches.
> >
> > I've attached the patches I intend to submit but I still have to work
> > through the binutils testsuite to account for the new tag and try to
> write a useful test case.
> > I'll also need to get advice on doing a GDB test for this as I don't
> > know if/how to do that.
> >
> > The patches are manually tested for o32/n32/n64 PIE and ordinary
> > executables with the expected behaviour that new PIEs with new ld.so
> > show the correct library list.
> >
> 
> I've build a MIPS o32 little-endian toolchain using crosstool-ng-
> 1.21.0, with gcc-5.1.0, binutils-2.25 and gdb-7.9.1, and your patches
> applied. However the problem still exists, I'm unable to debug PIE
> executables with shared libraries or inspect core files produced by
> such executables. The shared library is not listed by "info
> sharedlibrary", the backtrace cannot be extracted from core file. I can
> send you my crosstool-ng configuration file and the trivial application
> I use for testing.

The support in the GDB side of this depends on the elf.h header having
the DT_MIPS_RLD_MAP2 macro defined. Are you using native GDB or remote
with the gdbserver? The gdbserver does the work for finding shared
library debug if you are using a remote so has to be built from the
patched sources.

Debugging tips would be to firstly check that your PIE has the
DT_MIPS_RLD_MAP2 tag using readelf. To get a textual description of the
tag you will have to use readelf built from the patched binutils source.

Then double check that GDB has been built against headers that define
DT_MIPS_RLD_MAP2, the GLIBC patch includes changes to add this to the
headers.

Hope that helps narrow down which bit has failed.

Thanks,
Matthew


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]