Message ID | 52741B5A.6090800@linaro.org |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Headers | show |
>>>>> "Will" == Will Newton <will.newton@linaro.org> writes:
Will> When reading objects with corrupt debug information it is possible that
Will> the sibling chain can form a loop, which leads to an infinite loop and
Will> memory exhaustion.
Will> Avoid this situation by disregarding and DW_AT_sibling values that point
Will> to a lower address than the current entry.
Thanks for doing this.
Will> + const gdb_byte *sibling_ptr = buffer + dwarf2_get_ref_die_offset (&attr).sect_off;
This line is too long, it should be split somewhere.
Will> + if (sibling_ptr < info_ptr)
Will> + complaint (&symfile_complaints,
Will> + _("DW_AT_sibling points backwards"));
I wonder whether the check should be "<=".
Will> + const gdb_byte *sibling_ptr = buffer + dwarf2_get_ref_die_offset (&attr).sect_off;
Also too long.
Tom
On 4 November 2013 15:57, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Will" == Will Newton <will.newton@linaro.org> writes: > > Will> When reading objects with corrupt debug information it is possible that > Will> the sibling chain can form a loop, which leads to an infinite loop and > Will> memory exhaustion. > > Will> Avoid this situation by disregarding and DW_AT_sibling values that point > Will> to a lower address than the current entry. > > Thanks for doing this. > > Will> + const gdb_byte *sibling_ptr = buffer + dwarf2_get_ref_die_offset (&attr).sect_off; > > This line is too long, it should be split somewhere. Thanks, I'll fix these. > Will> + if (sibling_ptr < info_ptr) > Will> + complaint (&symfile_complaints, > Will> + _("DW_AT_sibling points backwards")); > > I wonder whether the check should be "<=". I'm not sure. It looks to me that info_ptr at this point will point to the next attribute/DIE which could be a valid sibling?
>>>>> "Will" == Will Newton <will.newton@linaro.org> writes:
Tom> I wonder whether the check should be "<=".
Will> I'm not sure. It looks to me that info_ptr at this point will point to
Will> the next attribute/DIE which could be a valid sibling?
Yeah, you're right.
Thanks.
Tom
diff --git a/gdb/dwarf2read.c b/gdb/dwarf2read.c index 3974d0b..d4dfd45 100644 --- a/gdb/dwarf2read.c +++ b/gdb/dwarf2read.c @@ -7016,7 +7016,14 @@ skip_one_die (const struct die_reader_specs *reader, const gdb_byte *info_ptr, complaint (&symfile_complaints, _("ignoring absolute DW_AT_sibling")); else - return buffer + dwarf2_get_ref_die_offset (&attr).sect_off; + { + const gdb_byte *sibling_ptr = buffer + dwarf2_get_ref_die_offset (&attr).sect_off; + if (sibling_ptr < info_ptr) + complaint (&symfile_complaints, + _("DW_AT_sibling points backwards")); + else + return buffer + dwarf2_get_ref_die_offset (&attr).sect_off; + } } /* If it isn't DW_AT_sibling, skip this attribute. */ @@ -15134,7 +15141,14 @@ read_partial_die (const struct die_reader_specs *reader, complaint (&symfile_complaints, _("ignoring absolute DW_AT_sibling")); else - part_die->sibling = buffer + dwarf2_get_ref_die_offset (&attr).sect_off; + { + const gdb_byte *sibling_ptr = buffer + dwarf2_get_ref_die_offset (&attr).sect_off; + if (sibling_ptr < info_ptr) + complaint (&symfile_complaints, + _("DW_AT_sibling points backwards")); + else + part_die->sibling = sibling_ptr; + } break; case DW_AT_byte_size: part_die->has_byte_size = 1;