[Bug binutils/27290] Out-of-memory (OOM) Denial of Service via unprotected memory allocation in elf32_avr_get_note_section_contents()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27290 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |amodra at gmail dot com Last reconfirmed||2021-02-11 Severity|critical|normal Ever confirmed|0 |1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27293] Arbitrary read/write via Integer Overflow in elf32_avr_get_device_info()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27293 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-02-11 Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |amodra at gmail dot com Severity|critical|normal Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0 |1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug libctf/27297] libctf.a malformed, build fails on x86_64-apple-darwin18.7.0
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27297 --- Comment #4 from Stephen Casner --- Bug 27360 appears to be related, but I'm not sure if they can be called duplicates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27294] Potentially exploitable Heap Overwrites in avr_elf32_load_records_from_section()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27294 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |amodra at gmail dot com Last reconfirmed||2021-02-11 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Severity|critical|normal -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27295] Unsafe strcmp() causing arbitrary read primitive and potential privacy impact in elf32_avr_get_note_desc()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27295 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |amodra at gmail dot com Severity|critical|normal Last reconfirmed||2021-02-11 --- Comment #1 from Alan Modra --- None of the unsigned integer overflows result in undefined behaviour, but yes, there should be a test in.namesz != 4. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug libctf/27297] libctf.a malformed, build fails on x86_64-apple-darwin18.7.0
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27297 Allan McRae changed: What|Removed |Added CC||allan at archlinux dot org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug libctf/27360] libctf.so.0: undefined symbol: bsearch_r
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27360 Stephen Casner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||casner at acm dot org --- Comment #4 from Stephen Casner --- The same commit was fingered in bug 27297; a fix is in progress there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug libctf/27360] libctf.so.0: undefined symbol: bsearch_r
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27360 --- Comment #3 from Allan McRae --- Bisected to the following commit: 1038406a8f6609ad0a449746da70393b0835f699 libctf: rip out BFD_DEPENDENCIES / BFD_LIBADD -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27291] False results/ misinformation, unpredictable behavior and potential crash through Integer Overflow in bfd_get_section_contents()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27291 --- Comment #1 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by Alan Modra : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=6db658c517bdfbf8e5b8c5a34caf3ff1eea332f1 commit 6db658c517bdfbf8e5b8c5a34caf3ff1eea332f1 Author: Alan Modra Date: Thu Feb 11 09:53:17 2021 +1030 PR27291, integer overflow in bfd_get_section_contents Makes the code a little more elegant too. Note that the unsigned overflow reported here is well defined so this patch doesn't fix any real problem. PR 27291 * section.c (bfd_get_section_contents): Avoid possible overflow when range checking offset and count. (bfd_set_section_contents): Likewise. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27287] False results/ misinformation, unpredictable behavior and potential crash through two Integer Overflows in elf_parse_notes() based on large xnp->name
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27287 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG --- Comment #1 from Alan Modra --- I believe these are also "errors" about overflow that is well defined. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27287] False results/ misinformation, unpredictable behavior and potential crash through two Integer Overflows in elf_parse_notes() based on large xnp->name
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27287 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-02-11 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |amodra at gmail dot com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27288] Undefined negations and integer overflows in elf_object_p() potentially crashing on some systems
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27288 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |amodra at gmail dot com Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG --- Comment #1 from Alan Modra --- These are all ubsan bugs, or you are using ubsan options that cause complaints about situations that are perfectly well defined according to the C standard. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27289] Undefined negation/ Negation Overflow in _bfd_doprnt_scan() potentially crashing on some systems
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27289 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |amodra at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from Alan Modra --- -1u is parsed as -(1u). This is *not* negation of 1 as claimed by the usban error but negation of an unsigned int. Negation of an unsigned int is perfectly well defined. Looks like a bug in ubsan to me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27291] False results/ misinformation, unpredictable behavior and potential crash through Integer Overflow in bfd_get_section_contents()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27291 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |amodra at gmail dot com Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2021-02-10 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27292] Heap Buffer Overflow O2BO and/or Out-of-Memory (OOM) in bfd_get_section_contents()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27292 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|critical|normal Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #1 from Alan Modra --- There is no possible overflow here. Possible overflow is checked a few lines earlier. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/27377] /usr/bin/ld.bfd: section .note.ABI-tag VMA [0000000000400190,00000000004001af] overlaps section .bss VMA [00000000000adc00,00000000004af3ff]
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27377 --- Comment #3 from Alan Modra --- Yes, changing -Ttext was exactly what Ian and Daniel wanted a long time ago.. https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2009-January/058886.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27390] [readelf] Support DW_FORM_strx1 and DW_FORM_addrx
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27390 --- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #2) > Created attachment 13216 [details] > Tentative patch FWIW, doesn't work yet with split dwarf. The DW_AT_addr_base is defined in the skeleton CU, and the DW_FORM_addrx uses are in the split CU, and readelf doesn't manage to figure out that those go together. Currently we end up with: ... <4b> DW_AT_low_pc : (addr_index: 0x0): ... so it looks like it doesn't even realize that the .debug_addr in a.out should be used for hello.dwo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27390] [readelf] Support DW_FORM_strx1 and DW_FORM_addrx
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27390 --- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries --- Created attachment 13217 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13217=edit a.out.gz Produced using: ... $ clang hello.c -gdwarf-5 ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27390] [readelf] Support DW_FORM_strx1 and DW_FORM_addrx
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27390 --- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries --- Created attachment 13216 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13216=edit Tentative patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27391] [readelf] Handle absolute DW_AT_dwo_name
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27391 --- Comment #3 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by Tom de Vries : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=d9d9d8ef8ce984dee45f35a5f00f4cf74bcab1e6 commit d9d9d8ef8ce984dee45f35a5f00f4cf74bcab1e6 Author: Tom de Vries Date: Wed Feb 10 17:26:50 2021 +0100 [binutils] Handle absolute DW_AT_dwo_name With an exec: ... $ pwd /home/vries/tmp $ gcc /home/vries/tmp/src/hello.c -gsplit-dwarf -c \ -o /home/vries/tmp/obj/hello.o ... I get: ... $ readelf -w obj/hello.o > READELF readelf: Warning: Unable to load dwo file: \ /home/vries/tmp//home/vries/tmp/obj/hello.dwo ... The dwo file name is listed here: ... <20> DW_AT_GNU_dwo_name: /home/vries/tmp/obj/hello.dwo <24> DW_AT_comp_dir: /home/vries/tmp ... The standard states about the DW_AT_dwo_name attribute: ... value is a null-terminated string containing the full or relative path name (relative to the value of the DW_AT_comp_dir attribute, see below) of the object file that contains the full compilation unit. ... So, readelf shouldn't try to prefix an absolute path with DW_AT_comp_dir. Fix this in load_dwo_file by handling the absolute path case. binutils/ChangeLog: 2021-02-10 Tom de Vries PR binutils/27391 * dwarf.c (load_dwo_file): Handle case that name is absolute path. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27391] [readelf] Handle absolute DW_AT_dwo_name
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27391 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|--- |2.37 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries --- Patch committed, marking resolved-fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27390] [readelf] Support DW_FORM_strx1 and DW_FORM_addrx
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27390 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Tom, Please could you upload a copy of the a.out file so that I can run some experiments ? Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/27377] /usr/bin/ld.bfd: section .note.ABI-tag VMA [0000000000400190,00000000004001af] overlaps section .bss VMA [00000000000adc00,00000000004af3ff]
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27377 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matz at suse dot de --- Comment #2 from Michael Matz --- Hah, -Ttext-segment indeed. When I was looking at this ( https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1181741 ), I idly thought that it would be better if -Ttext would do something else than the traditional .text section moving (for ELF formats), without realizing that this already exists :-) (For better or worse -Ttext is used by basically everything that wants something similar like grub, but what they _actually_ want is the behaviour of -Ttext-segment) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27302] windres: -I of preprocessor command line should be quoted
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27302 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-02-10 Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC||nickc at redhat dot com Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING --- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Katayama, I believe that this problem should be fixed by the recent patch that resolves PR 4356. Please could you try using the latest development binutils sources (not the 2.36 branch) and see if the problem still exists. Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27391] [readelf] Handle absolute DW_AT_dwo_name
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27391 --- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries --- submitted here: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-February/115314.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27286] False results/ misinformation, unpredictable behavior and potential crash through Multiple Integer Overflows/ Underflows in elf32_avr_get_note_desc()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27286 --- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton --- Created attachment 13215 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13215=edit Proposed patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27286] False results/ misinformation, unpredictable behavior and potential crash through Multiple Integer Overflows/ Underflows in elf32_avr_get_note_desc()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27286 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2021-02-10 Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Dennis, I cannot reproduce this failure on my system, but I do see how it might be possible for an integer overflow to occur. Please could you try out the uploaded patch and let me know if it resolves the problem for you. Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27391] [readelf] Handle absolute DW_AT_dwo_name
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27391
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Tentative patch:
...
diff --git a/binutils/dwarf.c b/binutils/dwarf.c
index 84d63f63366..3cbd19710d7 100644
--- a/binutils/dwarf.c
+++ b/binutils/dwarf.c
@@ -11092,8 +11092,11 @@ load_dwo_file (const char * main_filename, const char
* name,
const char * dir,
char * separate_filename;
void * separate_handle;
- /* FIXME: Skip adding / if dwo_dir ends in /. */
- separate_filename = concat (dir, "/", name, NULL);
+ if (IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (name))
+separate_filename = strdup (name);
+ else
+/* FIXME: Skip adding / if dwo_dir ends in /. */
+separate_filename = concat (dir, "/", name, NULL);
if (separate_filename == NULL)
{
warn (_("Out of memory allocating dwo filename\n"));
...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27285] False results/ misinformation, unpredictable behavior and potential crash through 2 Integer Overflows in elf32_avr_get_memory_usage() based on bfd_section_size()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27285 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Dennis, Please could you upload the poc1 reproducer ? Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27391] New: [readelf] Handle absolute DW_AT_dwo_name
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27391 Bug ID: 27391 Summary: [readelf] Handle absolute DW_AT_dwo_name Product: binutils Version: 2.37 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: binutils Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- With the fission-mix executable from the gdb testsuite, I run into: ... $ ~/binutils/install/bin/readelf -w fission-mix > READELF readelf: Warning: Unable to load dwo file: /home/vries/gdb_versions/devel/build/gdb/testsuite//home/vries/gdb_versions/devel/build/gdb/testsuite/outputs/gdb.dwarf2/fission-mix/fission-mix2.dwo ... At the start we find: ... The .debug_info section contains link(s) to dwo file(s): Name: /home/vries/gdb_versions/devel/build/gdb/testsuite/outputs/gdb.dwarf2/fission-mix/fission-mix2.dwo Directory: /home/vries/gdb_versions/devel/build/gdb/testsuite ID: ... and later-on the part from where we get this info: ... Compilation Unit @ offset 0x176: Length:0x31 (32-bit) Version: 5 Unit Type: DW_UT_skeleton (4) Abbrev Offset: 0xfd Pointer Size: 8 <0><18a>: Abbrev Number: 1 (DW_TAG_skeleton_unit) <18b> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x4004cf <193> DW_AT_high_pc : 0x15 <19b> DW_AT_stmt_list : 0x14d <19f> DW_AT_dwo_name: /home/vries/gdb_versions/devel/build/gdb/testsuite/outputs/gdb.dwarf2/fission-mix/fission-mix2.dwo <1a3> DW_AT_comp_dir: /home/vries/gdb_versions/devel/build/gdb/testsuite <1a7> DW_AT_GNU_pubnames: 1 <1a7> DW_AT_addr_base : 0x8 ... In the dwarf-5 standard we read: ... A skeleton compilation unit has a DW_AT_dwo_name attribute: 1. A DW_AT_dwo_name attribute whose value is a null-terminated string containing the full or relative path name (relative to the value of the DW_AT_comp_dir attribute, see below) of the object file that contains the full compilation unit. ... So, the name only needs to be prefixed with the dir if it's relative. In this case, the name is already absolute and readelf shouldn't try to add the dir prefix. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27371] [readelf] .debug_rnglists section header not parsed
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|--- |2.37 --- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries --- Patch committed, marking resolved-fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27371] [readelf] .debug_rnglists section header not parsed
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371 --- Comment #5 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by Tom de Vries : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=52ff20fe7ba8e8de2660339fff5308ed932e2b32 commit 52ff20fe7ba8e8de2660339fff5308ed932e2b32 Author: Tom de Vries Date: Wed Feb 10 12:30:46 2021 +0100 [binutils] Handle presence of both .debug_ranges and .debug_rnglists With exec: ... $ g++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/cpexprs.cc -gdwarf-5 -fdebug-types-section ... I run into: ... $ readelf -w a.out > READELF readelf: Error: Invalid range list entry type 126 readelf: Error: Invalid range list entry type 60 ... The executable contains both a .debug_rnglists section (for CU cpexprs.cc) and a .debug_ranges section (for other CUs, like crti.S). But when executing display_debug_ranges for say, section .debug_rnglists it also tries to use the range list references related to section .debug_ranges. Fix this by filtering out the .debug_range references when handling .debug_rnglists and vice versa. binutils/ChangeLog: 2021-02-10 Tom de Vries PR binutils/27371 * dwarf.c (display_debug_ranges): Filter range lists according to section. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/26070] readelf integer overflow and memory leak
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26070 anudeep homes247 changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anudeephomes247 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2 from anudeep homes247 --- Homes247.in- India's most trusted Real Estate & Proptech Portal was founded on the principle of providing an intelligent edge to the millions of Homebuyers out there! https://www.homes247.in https://www.homes247.in/property/bangalore/bagaluru/prestige-finsbury-park-594 https://www.homes247.in/property/bangalore/banashankari-6th-stage/prestige-primrose-hills-675 https://www.homes247.in/property/bangalore/begur-road/assetz-canvas-and-cove-637 https://www.homes247.in/property/bangalore/sarjapur-road/bren-champions-square-7 https://www.homes247.in/property/bangalore/mysore-road/brigade-panorama-74 https://www.homes247.in/property/bangalore/whitefield/brigade-lakefront-9 https://www.homes247.in/property/bangalore/hebbal/brigade-caladium-427 https://www.homes247.in/property/bangalore/hoodi/godrej-air-8 https://www.homes247.in/property/bangalore/hoodi/godrej-air-nxt-483 https://www.homes247.in/property/bangalore/sarjapur-road/godrej-24-516 https://www.homes247.in/bangalore/builder/ahad-builders-13 https://www.homes247.in/bangalore/builder/frontier-shelters-80 https://www.homes247.in/bangalore/builder/puravankara-limited-29 https://www.homes247.in/bangalore/builder/sobha-limited-2 https://www.homes247.in/bangalore/builder/salarpuria-sattva-group-36 https://www.homes247.in/bangalore/builder/mahaveer-group-28 https://www.homes247.in/bangalore/builder/embassy-group-81 https://www.homes247.in/bangalore/builder/brigade-group-9 https://www.homes247.in/bangalore/builder/godrej-properties-21 https://www.homes247.in/bangalore/builder/address-maker-65 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27390] New: [readelf] Support DW_FORM_strx1 and DW_FORM_addrx
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27390 Bug ID: 27390 Summary: [readelf] Support DW_FORM_strx1 and DW_FORM_addrx Product: binutils Version: 2.37 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: binutils Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- ... $ clang hello.c -gdwarf-5 $ readelf -w a.out > READELF readelf: Warning: Unrecognized form: 37 readelf: Warning: Unrecognized form: 37 readelf: Warning: Unrecognized form: 37 readelf: Warning: Unsupported form (DW_FORM_strx1) for attribute DW_AT_comp_dir readelf: Warning: Unrecognized form: 27 readelf: Warning: DIE at offset 0xe6 refers to abbreviation number 8 which does not exist readelf: Warning: Unrecognized form: 37 readelf: Warning: Unrecognized form: 37 readelf: Warning: Unrecognized form: 37 readelf: Warning: Unsupported form (DW_FORM_strx1) for attribute DW_AT_comp_dir readelf: Warning: Unrecognized form: 27 readelf: Warning: DIE at offset 0xe6 refers to abbreviation number 8 which does not exist readelf: Warning: Unrecognized form: 37 readelf: Warning: Unrecognized form: 37 readelf: Warning: Unrecognized form: 37 readelf: Warning: Unrecognized form: 27 readelf: Warning: DIE at offset 0xe6 refers to abbreviation number 8 which does not exist readelf: Warning: Unable to load/parse the .debug_info section, so cannot interpret the .debug_loc section. readelf: Warning: Unable to load/parse the .debug_info section, so cannot interpret the .debug_ranges section. readelf: Warning: Unable to load/parse the .debug_info section, so cannot interpret the .debug_addr section. ... Form 37: 0x25: DW_FORM_strx1 Form 27: 0x1b: DW_FORM_addrx -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27386] [readelf] DW_UT_split_compile and DW_UT_skeleton support
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27386 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |2.37 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries --- Patch committed. Tentatively marking this resolved-fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27371] [readelf] .debug_rnglists section header not parsed
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371 --- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #3) > (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1) > Hi Tom, > > I do not quite get this: > > > - int is_rnglists = strstr (section->name, "debug_rnglists") != NULL; > > + int is_rnglists = strstr (section->name, ".debug_rnglists") != NULL; > > The strstr() function locates a sub-string within a a longer string, > so won't both versions of the code above produce the same results ? > > I think that the reason that the test did not include the "." prefix > was that it is meant to work with compressed range list sections as > well, ie .zdebug_rnglists. Hi Nick, you're right, this is incorrect. Alan had the same comment. I've resubmitted here: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-February/115309.html Thanks, - Tom -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27387] [readelf] Support -ggdb3 -gsplit-dwarf output
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27387 --- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries --- This looks a bit weird though: ... $ readelf -S -W hello.dwo There are 32 section headers, starting at offset 0x3028: Section Headers: [Nr] Name TypeAddress OffSize ES Flg Lk Inf Al [ 0] NULL 00 00 00 0 0 0 [ 1] .debug_info.dwo PROGBITS 40 0001fe 00 CE 0 0 8 [ 2] .debug_abbrev.dwo PROGBITS 000240 b6 00 CE 0 0 8 [ 3] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 0002f8 b3 00 CE 0 0 8 [ 4] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 0003b0 000313 00 C 0 0 8 [ 5] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 0006c3 17 00 0 0 1 [ 6] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 0006da 0c 00 0 0 1 [ 7] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 0006e8 00010f 00 C 0 0 8 [ 8] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 0007f7 f4 00 0 0 1 [ 9] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 0008eb 10 00 0 0 1 [10] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 0008fb 34 00 0 0 1 [11] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 00092f 39 00 0 0 1 [12] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 000968 23 00 0 0 1 [13] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 00098b 0b 00 0 0 1 [14] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 000996 67 00 0 0 1 [15] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 0009fd 3f 00 0 0 1 [16] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 000a3c 9c 00 0 0 1 [17] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 000ad8 0e 00 0 0 1 [18] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 000ae6 18 00 0 0 1 [19] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 000afe 1a 00 0 0 1 [20] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 000b18 3c 00 0 0 1 [21] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 000b54 0c 00 0 0 1 [22] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 000b60 000127 00 C 0 0 8 [23] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 000c87 2e 00 0 0 1 [24] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 000cb5 1f 00 0 0 1 [25] .debug_macro.dwo PROGBITS 000cd4 1b 00 0 0 1 [26] .debug_line.dwo PROGBITS 000cf0 000117 00 CE 0 0 8 [27] .debug_str_offsets.dwo PROGBITS 000e08 0004e8 00 CE 0 0 8 [28] .debug_str.dwoPROGBITS 0012f0 0019f4 00 CE 0 0 8 [29] .symtab SYMTAB 002ce8 0002b8 18 30 29 8 [30] .strtab STRTAB 002fa0 01 00 0 0 1 [31] .shstrtab STRTAB 002fa1 84 00 0 0 1 Key to Flags: W (write), A (alloc), X (execute), M (merge), S (strings), I (info), L (link order), O (extra OS processing required), G (group), T (TLS), C (compressed), x (unknown), o (OS specific), E (exclude), l (large), p (processor specific) ... Why do we have so many .debug_macro.dwo sections? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27371] [readelf] .debug_rnglists section header not parsed
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371 --- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1) Hi Tom, I do not quite get this: > - int is_rnglists = strstr (section->name, "debug_rnglists") != NULL; > + int is_rnglists = strstr (section->name, ".debug_rnglists") != NULL; The strstr() function locates a sub-string within a a longer string, so won't both versions of the code above produce the same results ? I think that the reason that the test did not include the "." prefix was that it is meant to work with compressed range list sections as well, ie .zdebug_rnglists. Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/27384] Invalid free() in _IO_new_file_close_it
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27384 --- Comment #3 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by Nick Clifton : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=01e8b831f588e706ced57b57cc0ed05c14da61ea commit 01e8b831f588e706ced57b57cc0ed05c14da61ea Author: Nick Clifton Date: Wed Feb 10 09:56:33 2021 + Remove debugging code accidentally included with the fix for PR 27384 * listing.c (buffer_line): Remove debugging code accidentally included with the fix for PR 27384. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
