From: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@adacore.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@adacore.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Always fetch Ada "main" name from the executable
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2026 18:07:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87qzkclcm8.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260730170336.2547536-1-tromey@adacore.com>
Tom Tromey <tromey@adacore.com> writes:
> The gdb.ada/file-then-restart.exp test was failing with gnat-llvm. I
> tracked this down to the "main" name not being stored in a readonly
> section, meaning that the code in ada_main_name using trust_readonly
> did not work.
>
> However, it seems to me that gdb should always prefer the data from
> the executable in this particular case. So, rather than relying on
> trust_readonly, this patch changes gdb to do this directly.
I was pointed at this:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/bunsen/2026q3/001484.html
It's an AI/LLM code review of this patch. The review in this case seems
to be totally bogus, everything it is commenting on is either fine, or
is part of the documented API of the function.
However, I asked Claude to review the patch and it did highlight one
issue. It's mostly theoretical, but fixing it is trivial, so we might
as well.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Andrew
---
commit 5990efb77092a3a02330260b88899d5a8b15bca7
Author: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Aug 5 17:23:38 2026 +0100
gdb/ada: avoid rereading stale main name data in edge case
The commit:
commit 8eafbbc74748e499ec785f78858687bd7ea79005
Date: Wed Jul 29 12:40:03 2026 -0600
Always fetch Ada "main" name from the executable
changes ada_main_name to use section_table_xfer_memory_partial. This
introduced a highly unlikely, but theoretical bug where stale buffer
data could cause GDB to find an invalid name for "main".
Looking at ada_main_name (in ada-lang.c), the steps to reproduce the
bug are:
1. Debug a program that causes the static buffer main_program_name
to have some content written to it. For the sake of this bug
let's assume the main name is "xxxxxxxxxx", the main_program_name
buffer will contain 10 'x' characters, a null byte, then whatever
happened to be in the section after that.
2. A new executable is loaded into GDB and ada_main_name is called
again.
3. For whatever reason the new executable is maybe not correct. The
ADA_MAIN_PROGRAM_SYMBOL_NAME symbol points to an address 5 bytes
before the end of a section. None of these 5 bytes are a null
bytes. Let's assume these 5 bytes are "aaaaa".
4. The section_table_xfer_memory_partial call will try to read up to
1024 bytes, but as there are only 5 bytes left in the section,
only 5 will be read. This leaves the main_program_name buffer
containing "aaaaaxxxxx" followed by a null character byte.
5. GDB returns this merged string as the result from ada_main_name.
Now given this depends on the second executable being broken, we maybe
don't really care too much, however, fixing this is pretty easy.
The current code already checks:
&& (strnlen ((char *) main_program_name, sizeof (main_program_name))
< sizeof (main_program_name))
This ensures that there's a string with a null byte contained within
the buffer, but makes the assumption that we always read
sizeof (main_program_name) bytes from the section.
But we know how many bytes were read, that's the value in XFERRED.
What we really want to ask is: was there a null terminated string
within the bytes that we just read. This is:
&& (strnlen ((char *) main_program_name, xferred) < xferred)
Given how simple this fix is, let's make it.
diff --git a/gdb/ada-lang.c b/gdb/ada-lang.c
index 906c5cd3465..174e04af04c 100644
--- a/gdb/ada-lang.c
+++ b/gdb/ada-lang.c
@@ -806,8 +806,7 @@ ada_main_name ()
sections)
== TARGET_XFER_OK)
&& xferred > 0
- && (strnlen ((char *) main_program_name, sizeof (main_program_name))
- < sizeof (main_program_name)))
+ && (strnlen ((char *) main_program_name, xferred) < xferred))
return (char *) main_program_name;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-05 17:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-30 17:03 Tom Tromey
2026-07-31 10:48 ` Pedro Alves
2026-08-05 17:07 ` Andrew Burgess [this message]
2026-08-07 13:55 ` Tom Tromey
2026-08-07 15:03 ` Andrew Burgess
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87qzkclcm8.fsf@redhat.com \
--to=aburgess@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=tromey@adacore.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox