[PATCH] gdb: handle endbr64 instruction in amd64_analyze_prologue
Simon Marchi
simark@simark.ca
Wed May 6 16:31:21 GMT 2020
On 2020-05-01 10:22 a.m., Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote:
> On 2020-05-01 5:52 a.m., Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 01-05-2020 07:28, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>> Some GCCs now enable -fcf-protection by default. This is the case, for
>>> example, with GCC 9.3.0 on Ubuntu 20.04. Enabling it causes the
>>> `endbr64` instruction to be inserted at the beginning of all functions
>>> and that breaks GDB's prologue analysis.
>>>
>>> I noticed this because it gives many failures in gdb.base/break.exp.
>>> But let's take this dummy program and put a breakpoint on main:
>>>
>>> int main(void)
>>> {
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Without -fcf-protection, the breakpoint is correctly put after the prologue:
>>>
>>> $ gcc test.c -g3 -O0 -fcf-protection=none
>>> $ ./gdb -q -nx --data-directory=data-directory a.out
>>> Reading symbols from a.out...
>>> (gdb) disassemble main
>>> Dump of assembler code for function main:
>>> 0x0000000000001129 <+0>: push %rbp
>>> 0x000000000000112a <+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp
>>> 0x000000000000112d <+4>: mov $0x0,%eax
>>> 0x0000000000001132 <+9>: pop %rbp
>>> 0x0000000000001133 <+10>: retq
>>> End of assembler dump.
>>> (gdb) b main
>>> Breakpoint 1 at 0x112d: file test.c, line 3.
>>>
>>> With -fcf-protection, the breakpoint is incorrectly put on the first
>>> byte of the function:
>>>
>>> $ gcc test.c -g3 -O0 -fcf-protection=full
>>> $ ./gdb -q -nx --data-directory=data-directory a.out
>>> Reading symbols from a.out...
>>> (gdb) disassemble main
>>> Dump of assembler code for function main:
>>> 0x0000000000001129 <+0>: endbr64
>>> 0x000000000000112d <+4>: push %rbp
>>> 0x000000000000112e <+5>: mov %rsp,%rbp
>>> 0x0000000000001131 <+8>: mov $0x0,%eax
>>> 0x0000000000001136 <+13>: pop %rbp
>>> 0x0000000000001137 <+14>: retq
>>> End of assembler dump.
>>> (gdb) b main
>>> Breakpoint 1 at 0x1129: file test.c, line 2.
>>>
>>> Stepping in amd64_skip_prologue, we can see that the prologue analysis,
>>> for GCC-compiled programs, is done in amd64_analyze_prologue by decoding
>>> the instructions and looking for typical patterns. This patch changes
>>> the analysis to check for a prologue starting with the `endbr64`
>>> instruction, and skip it if it's there.
>>>
>>> gdb/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * amd64-tdep.c (amd64_analyze_prologue): Check for `endbr64`
>>> instruction, skip it if it's there.
>>>
>>> gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp: New file.
>>> * gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.c: New file.
>>> ---
>>> gdb/amd64-tdep.c | 19 +++++++
>>> .../amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.c | 21 +++++++
>>> .../amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp | 56 +++++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 96 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.c
>>> create mode 100644 gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gdb/amd64-tdep.c b/gdb/amd64-tdep.c
>>> index 5c56a970d8c..c846447a8e0 100644
>>> --- a/gdb/amd64-tdep.c
>>> +++ b/gdb/amd64-tdep.c
>>> @@ -2362,6 +2362,9 @@ amd64_x32_analyze_stack_align (CORE_ADDR pc, CORE_ADDR current_pc,
>>> pushq %rbp 0x55
>>> movl %esp, %ebp 0x89 0xe5 (or 0x8b 0xec)
>>>
>>> + The `endbr64` instruction can be found before these sequences, and will be
>>> + skipped if found.
>>> +
>>> Any function that doesn't start with one of these sequences will be
>>> assumed to have no prologue and thus no valid frame pointer in
>>> %rbp. */
>>> @@ -2372,6 +2375,8 @@ amd64_analyze_prologue (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
>>> struct amd64_frame_cache *cache)
>>> {
>>> enum bfd_endian byte_order = gdbarch_byte_order (gdbarch);
>>> + /* The `endbr64` instruction. */
>>> + static const gdb_byte endbr64[4] = { 0xf3, 0x0f, 0x1e, 0xfa };
>>> /* There are two variations of movq %rsp, %rbp. */
>>> static const gdb_byte mov_rsp_rbp_1[3] = { 0x48, 0x89, 0xe5 };
>>> static const gdb_byte mov_rsp_rbp_2[3] = { 0x48, 0x8b, 0xec };
>>> @@ -2392,6 +2397,20 @@ amd64_analyze_prologue (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
>>>
>>> op = read_code_unsigned_integer (pc, 1, byte_order);
>>>
>>> + /* Check for the `endbr64` instruction, skip it if found. */
>>> + if (op == endbr64[0])
>>> + {
>>> + read_code (pc + 1, buf, 3);
>>
>> Should we use target_read_code here and handle the case the memory could
>> not be read?
>
> read_code will throw an exception if the memory can't be read. It's not
> clear to me, however, if it will end up correctly handled or not. I'll use
> read_code in this patch, since that's what the function already uses, but
> we can look into improving error handling separately, if necessary.
>
>>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 00000000000..c3348054ae0
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
>>> +# Copyright 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>>> +
>>> +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>> +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>>> +# the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
>>> +# (at your option) any later version.
>>> +#
>>> +# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>> +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>> +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>>> +# GNU General Public License for more details.
>>> +#
>>> +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>>> +# along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>>> +
>>> +# Test skipping a prologue that was generated with gcc's -fcf-protection=full
>>> +# (control flow protection) option.
>>> +#
>>> +# This option places an `endbr64` instruction at the start of all functions,
>>> +# which can interfere with prologue analysis.
>>> +
>>> +standard_testfile .c
>>> +set binfile ${binfile}.o
>>> +
>>
>> I'm rather curious, why are we using a .o file here instead of an
>> executable?
>
> Huh, because I copied stuff from amd64-prologue-skip.exp. This one is written in
> assembly and checks specific addresses. Using a .o file allows that, since we know
> it starts at 0 and we know the size of each instruction. Using an executable means
> that we can't hardcode addresses in the test.
>
> I've changed it to `executable`, and renamed the test function to `main`.
>
>>> +if { ![istarget x86_64-*-* ] || ![is_lp64_target] } {
>>> + verbose "Skipping ${testfile}."
>>> + return
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> When using an older compiler, I see:
>> ...
>> Running gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp ...
>> gdb compile failed, gcc: error: unrecognized command line option \
>> '-fcf-protection=full'; did you mean '-fstack-protector-all'?
>>
>> === gdb Summary ===
>>
>> # of untested testcases 1
>> ...
>>
>> Can we get rid of this verbose compile fail by using something like:
>> ...
>> if { ![supports_fcf_protection] } {
>> untested "-fcf-protection not supported"
>> return
>> }
>> ...
>> in combination with this in gdb.exp:
>> ...
>> # Return 1 if compiler supports -fcf-protection=. Otherwise,
>>
>> # return 0.
>>
>>
>> gdb_caching_proc supports_fcf_protection {
>> return [gdb_can_simple_compile supports_statement_frontiers {
>> int main () {
>> return 0;
>> }
>> } executable "additional_flags=-fcf-protection=full"]
>> }
>> ...
>> ?
>
> Yes, especially since you provide the code, that makes it easy :).
>
> I validated that it does what it's intended to do on a host without -fcf-protection
> support.
>
>>
>>> +set opts {debug additional_flags=-fcf-protection=full}
>>> +
>>> +if { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" object $opts] != "" } {
>>> + untested "failed to compile"
>>> + return
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +clean_restart ${binfile}
>>> +
>>> +# Get start address of function foo.
>>> +set foo_addr [get_integer_valueof &foo -1]
>>> +gdb_assert {$foo_addr != -1}
>>> +
>>> +# Put breakpoint on foo, get the address where the breakpoint was installed.
>>> +gdb_test_multiple "break foo" "break on foo, get address" {
>>> + -re "Breakpoint $decimal at ($hex)" {
>>> + set bp_addr $expect_out(1,string)
>>> +
>>> + # Convert to decimal.
>>> + set bp_addr [expr $bp_addr]
>>> +
>>> + pass $gdb_test_name
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +# Make sure some prologue was skipped.
>>> +gdb_assert {$bp_addr > $foo_addr}
>>>
>>
>> You're not using -wrap to get the gdb prompt, which is probably a good idea:
>> ...
>> -re -wrap "Breakpoint $decimal at ($hex).*" {
>> ...
>
> Done.
>
>> Also, if the match fails for some reason, bp_addr will not be set, and
>> cause a tcl error when accessed in the gdb_assert.
>>
>> We can move the gdb_assert after the pass, or set bp_addr to -1 before
>> the gdb_test_multple, and do something like:
>> ...
>> if { $bp_addr != -1 } {
>> # Make sure some prologue was skipped.
>>
>> gdb_assert {$bp_addr > $foo_addr}
>> }
>> ...
>
> Done (the `$p_addr != -1` way). If we fail to get the breakpoint address,
> there will already be a FAIL, it fine not to execute the gdb_assert.
>
> Thanks for the review, see updated patch below.
>
> From 6d8f6c2297db840ed5a4b3e79c06a2cc14e2c0d9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 16:05:21 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] gdb: handle endbr64 instruction in amd64_analyze_prologue
>
> v2:
> - test: build full executable instead of object
> - test: add and use supports_fcf_protection
> - test: use gdb_test_multiple's -wrap option
> - test: don't execute gdb_assert if failed to get breakpoint address
>
> Some GCCs now enable -fcf-protection by default. This is the case, for
> example, with GCC 9.3.0 on Ubuntu 20.04. Enabling it causes the
> `endbr64` instruction to be inserted at the beginning of all functions
> and that breaks GDB's prologue analysis.
>
> I noticed this because it gives many failures in gdb.base/break.exp.
> But let's take this dummy program and put a breakpoint on main:
>
> int main(void)
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
> Without -fcf-protection, the breakpoint is correctly put after the prologue:
>
> $ gcc test.c -g3 -O0 -fcf-protection=none
> $ ./gdb -q -nx --data-directory=data-directory a.out
> Reading symbols from a.out...
> (gdb) disassemble main
> Dump of assembler code for function main:
> 0x0000000000001129 <+0>: push %rbp
> 0x000000000000112a <+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp
> 0x000000000000112d <+4>: mov $0x0,%eax
> 0x0000000000001132 <+9>: pop %rbp
> 0x0000000000001133 <+10>: retq
> End of assembler dump.
> (gdb) b main
> Breakpoint 1 at 0x112d: file test.c, line 3.
>
> With -fcf-protection, the breakpoint is incorrectly put on the first
> byte of the function:
>
> $ gcc test.c -g3 -O0 -fcf-protection=full
> $ ./gdb -q -nx --data-directory=data-directory a.out
> Reading symbols from a.out...
> (gdb) disassemble main
> Dump of assembler code for function main:
> 0x0000000000001129 <+0>: endbr64
> 0x000000000000112d <+4>: push %rbp
> 0x000000000000112e <+5>: mov %rsp,%rbp
> 0x0000000000001131 <+8>: mov $0x0,%eax
> 0x0000000000001136 <+13>: pop %rbp
> 0x0000000000001137 <+14>: retq
> End of assembler dump.
> (gdb) b main
> Breakpoint 1 at 0x1129: file test.c, line 2.
>
> Stepping in amd64_skip_prologue, we can see that the prologue analysis,
> for GCC-compiled programs, is done in amd64_analyze_prologue by decoding
> the instructions and looking for typical patterns. This patch changes
> the analysis to check for a prologue starting with the `endbr64`
> instruction, and skip it if it's there.
>
> gdb/ChangeLog:
>
> * amd64-tdep.c (amd64_analyze_prologue): Check for `endbr64`
> instruction, skip it if it's there.
>
> gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp: New file.
> * gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.c: New file.
> ---
> gdb/amd64-tdep.c | 19 ++++++
> .../amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.c | 21 ++++++
> .../amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp | 65 +++++++++++++++++++
> gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp | 11 ++++
> 4 files changed, 116 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.c
> create mode 100644 gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp
>
> diff --git a/gdb/amd64-tdep.c b/gdb/amd64-tdep.c
> index 5c56a970d8c4..c846447a8e0b 100644
> --- a/gdb/amd64-tdep.c
> +++ b/gdb/amd64-tdep.c
> @@ -2362,6 +2362,9 @@ amd64_x32_analyze_stack_align (CORE_ADDR pc, CORE_ADDR current_pc,
> pushq %rbp 0x55
> movl %esp, %ebp 0x89 0xe5 (or 0x8b 0xec)
>
> + The `endbr64` instruction can be found before these sequences, and will be
> + skipped if found.
> +
> Any function that doesn't start with one of these sequences will be
> assumed to have no prologue and thus no valid frame pointer in
> %rbp. */
> @@ -2372,6 +2375,8 @@ amd64_analyze_prologue (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
> struct amd64_frame_cache *cache)
> {
> enum bfd_endian byte_order = gdbarch_byte_order (gdbarch);
> + /* The `endbr64` instruction. */
> + static const gdb_byte endbr64[4] = { 0xf3, 0x0f, 0x1e, 0xfa };
> /* There are two variations of movq %rsp, %rbp. */
> static const gdb_byte mov_rsp_rbp_1[3] = { 0x48, 0x89, 0xe5 };
> static const gdb_byte mov_rsp_rbp_2[3] = { 0x48, 0x8b, 0xec };
> @@ -2392,6 +2397,20 @@ amd64_analyze_prologue (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
>
> op = read_code_unsigned_integer (pc, 1, byte_order);
>
> + /* Check for the `endbr64` instruction, skip it if found. */
> + if (op == endbr64[0])
> + {
> + read_code (pc + 1, buf, 3);
> +
> + if (memcmp (buf, &endbr64[1], 3) == 0)
> + pc += 4;
> +
> + op = read_code_unsigned_integer (pc, 1, byte_order);
> + }
> +
> + if (current_pc <= pc)
> + return current_pc;
> +
> if (op == 0x55) /* pushq %rbp */
> {
> /* Take into account that we've executed the `pushq %rbp' that
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..a6505857e176
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
> +/* This testcase is part of GDB, the GNU debugger.
> +
> + Copyright 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> +
> + This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> + the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
> + (at your option) any later version.
> +
> + This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> + but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> + GNU General Public License for more details.
> +
> + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> + along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. */
> +
> +int main (void)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..3c51fd303525
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-prologue-skip-cf-protection.exp
> @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
> +# Copyright 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> +
> +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> +# the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
> +# (at your option) any later version.
> +#
> +# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> +# GNU General Public License for more details.
> +#
> +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> +# along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> +
> +# Test skipping a prologue that was generated with gcc's -fcf-protection=full
> +# (control flow protection) option.
> +#
> +# This option places an `endbr64` instruction at the start of all functions,
> +# which can interfere with prologue analysis.
> +
> +standard_testfile .c
> +set binfile ${binfile}
> +
> +if { ![istarget x86_64-*-* ] || ![is_lp64_target] } {
> + verbose "Skipping ${testfile}."
> + return
> +}
> +
> +if { ![supports_fcf_protection] } {
> + untested "-fcf-protection not supported"
> + return
> +}
> +
> +set opts {debug additional_flags=-fcf-protection=full}
> +
> +if { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable $opts] != "" } {
> + untested "failed to compile"
> + return
> +}
> +
> +clean_restart ${binfile}
> +
> +# Get start address of function main.
> +set main_addr [get_integer_valueof &main -1]
> +gdb_assert {$main_addr != -1}
> +
> +set bp_addr -1
> +
> +# Put breakpoint on main, get the address where the breakpoint was installed.
> +gdb_test_multiple "break main" "break on main, get address" {
> + -re -wrap "Breakpoint $decimal at ($hex).*" {
> + set bp_addr $expect_out(1,string)
> +
> + # Convert to decimal.
> + set bp_addr [expr $bp_addr]
> +
> + pass $gdb_test_name
> + }
> +}
> +
> +if { $bp_addr != -1 } {
> + # Make sure some prologue was skipped.
> + gdb_assert {$bp_addr > $main_addr}
> +}
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
> index b72ce0cda7fa..ab0dd44da7bc 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
> @@ -7007,6 +7007,17 @@ gdb_caching_proc supports_statement_frontiers {
> } executable "additional_flags=-gstatement-frontiers"]
> }
>
> +# Return 1 if compiler supports -fcf-protection=. Otherwise,
> +# return 0.
> +
> +gdb_caching_proc supports_fcf_protection {
> + return [gdb_can_simple_compile supports_fcf_protection {
> + int main () {
> + return 0;
> + }
> + } executable "additional_flags=-fcf-protection=full"]
> +}
> +
> # Return 1 if symbols were read in using -readnow. Otherwise, return 0.
>
> proc readnow { } {
> --
> 2.26.2
>
I pushed this patch.
Simon
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list