[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 01:04:11 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: another armv7-m exception handling problem
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:43:40PM +1100, Patrick Oppenlander wrote:
> Not sure if this is a musl, gcc or ld bug.
>
> Running gcc-8.3.0 musl 1.1.24 static pie.
>
> Simple test case:
>
> int main()
> {
> try {
> throw 1;
> } catch (int d) {
> return d;
> }
> return 0;
> }
>
> Expected:
> % ./a.out
> % echo $?
> 1
>
> Actual:
> % ./a.out
> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'int'
> terminate called recursively
> Aborted (core dumped)
>
> The problem is that get_eit_entry is returning _URC_FAILURE here:
>
> if (__gnu_Unwind_Find_exidx)
> {
> eitp = (const __EIT_entry *) __gnu_Unwind_Find_exidx (return_address,
> &nrec);
> if (!eitp)
> {
> UCB_PR_ADDR (ucbp) = 0;
> return _URC_FAILURE; <----- !!!!
> }
> }
>
> Looks like a linker or program load problem to me -- the GOT entry for
> __gnu_Unwind_Find_exidx is correctly set to 0, but after program load
> it's been offset to some non-zero value. There's an R_ARM_RELATIVE
> relocation on the GOT entry.
>
> Not sure where this is going wrong.
OK, this is almost surely a bug in the tooling -- a weak reference has
to use a GOT slot in PIC since it might be undefined and need to
evaluate to 0, and the GOT slot should not have a relocation on it if
it ends up evaluating to 0. Pretty sure it's ld's fault.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
