On 2014-12-05 11:58, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 02:10 +0300, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
On 2014-12-04 17:27, Mark Wielaard wrote:
But I found that using such broad coverage makes the search space for the
fuzzer really, really big. It can take days for the fuzzer to generate a
s
Josh Stone writes:
> I'll see if I can grab that old kernel debuginfo to do a more direct
> comparison.
You could grab the old code and compare that. If you're still in the
80's, it's the data, not the code.
Thanks,
Petr
On 2014-12-04 19:03, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 15:27 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Thanks! We have been fixing various issues the last couple of weeks
and I just pushed some my fixes to git master. So if you could retry
against the very latest git checkout that would be very helpf
Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard
---
src/ChangeLog | 5 +
src/readelf.c | 8
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/ChangeLog b/src/ChangeLog
index ccbd6e8..1c3cf2f 100644
--- a/src/ChangeLog
+++ b/src/ChangeLog
@@ -1,5 +1,10 @@
2014-12-07 Mark Wielaard
+ * reade
print_cfa_program might call print_ops with zero offset size. We don't
need (and don't know) the DWARF offset size in that case. DW_OP_call_ref
and DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer need to know the offset size because they
reference a DIE. But they are invalid when used from CFA.
Signed-off-by: Mark Wie
In relocate_section we check relocation sections don't overlap any of the
ELF headers. We should check against the actually used ehsize, shentsize
and phentsize. Not the possibly bogus values in the file ehdr itself.
Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard
---
libdwfl/ChangeLog | 5 +
libdwfl/relocat
This really is just a robustify patch in case section zero got the
wrong section flags set. In that case __libdwfl_relocate_value might
call dwfl_offline_section_address which might assert (because it isn't
prepared to handle section zero). elf_nextscn will never see section zero.
So be explicit in
