On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Williams <b...@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
> On 12/08/2015 12:47 PM, Barton Miller wrote: > >> How often are these indirect vs. direct? Does it ever happen that the >> indirect points to static tables of addresses, so is statically resolvable? >> >> Mostly they're direct; indirect ones exist in a few places in newer glibc > (and/or libstdc++) versions from what we've seen, but not at all on a test > run on RHEL6. > > It's possible that the indirect ones would point to static tables of > addresses, but highly unlikely--there's no reason to encode as indirect > unless you're actually changing the potential catch block at runtime. > Haven't got data about the existence of static tables, but previously we > were recording "catch blocks" that were the addresses of the pointers, > which is IMO actively harmful. Furthermore, we know that in the cases where > there aren't static tables, we're often getting pointers in .bss, which we > obviously can't even try to follow statically (this was producing crashes). > > A measurement on libstdc++ from RHEL7 actually shows results contrary to our expectations. In this libstdc++, all catch blocks are direct. We only encounter indirect encoding when we read and skip personality data. And all indirect pointers go to the .data section. Based on these results, no wonder previously we are fine with completely ignoring these indirect pointers as we do not try to interpret personality data. Thanks, --Xiaozhu
_______________________________________________ Dyninst-api mailing list Dyninst-api@cs.wisc.edu https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/dyninst-api
