Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev
2019-Dec-16 22:40 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC][DWARF] Handling errors in DWARF .debug_line parsing
Hey James, This sounds really interesting. A few things that come to mind: - I'm curious what kind of errors you'd be okay with in dump mode but not in consumer mode. From LLDB's perspective, we probably want to extract as much information as possible from a malformed line table, as long as we don't end up lying of course. - I need to take another look at the code, but don't we already have something similar where the consumer can decide how to deal with these kinds of issues? I'm bringing this up because I don't think we really need different parsing modes. I think we need to let the consumer decide what to do with the potential errors. The verifier in dwarfdump would presumably stop after the first error (~strict mode) while the dumper would just move on. Would the parsing modes then be a set of "presets" with regards to how to handle these issues? - I'm in favor of creating these error messages lazily, especially for LLDB where we care about responsiveness. However, that does conflict with the behavior you want for the DWARF verifier. We probably want a way to control this? Cheers, Jonas On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:26 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> > (mailing lists can be busy - best to include any known-relevant parties on the 'to' line to help highlight the discussion for them) > > My take on it: I'd be OK with only a strict mode with good error messages lazily created. (so you don't get an error if you never needed to parse/lookup a file name, for instance - don't want the strict mode to be inefficient by aggressively parsing portions of the file you don't end up needing) If there are cases where consumers just need to be able to read invalid DWARF, yeah, could jump that hurdle when it comes up in a few ways I guess. > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 3:03 AM James Henderson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm preparing to propose some additional error checks for the DWARF debug line parser which we have locally. However, there have been some valid comments in the past that some errors really shouldn't prevent parsing for certain situations. For example, a line_range of 0 would only be an issue if anything needed that information (and would consequently divide by zero), whilst the include directories and file names table should be terminated with null bytes, but the parser could use the header length field to identify when the tables have ended instead. >> >> After a brief discussion with Paul Robinson offline, I think it would be good to add different parsing modes to the debug line parser. I've got three possible categories: >> 1) "Dump" mode - this would be the most lenient mode. It is intended for tools like llvm-dwarfdump that merely want to print the contents to the best of their ability, even if the table is malformed/dodgy in some other way. It might print warnings, but these should not prevent it continuing to parse what it can. >> 2) "Strict" or "Verify" mode - this would be the strictest mode, which would emit an error if it sees things like the aforementioned bad line_range or filenames tables. Optionally, we could even extend this to also cover things like addresses that don't make sense (possibly with or without special handling for fixups for GC-sections-processed output), or that could be a further mode. >> 3) "Consumer" mode - this would be somewhere in between the two above modes and would essentially do whatever a consumer such as LLDB wants. It might not need to be as strict as the "Strict" mode, but some guidance here from the consumers would be best. >> >> I haven't yet worked out exactly how this would work, but I think it would probably fit into the existing error handling mechanism, either with some extra conditionals or similar that say whether to report an error or not. I will hopefully be putting up some proposed patches later this week that illustrate all this. >> >> I'd appreciate any thoughts people have on the different modes, whether we would need more/fewer, what they'd each cover etc. >> >> Regards, >> >> James >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2019-Dec-16 22:47 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC][DWARF] Handling errors in DWARF .debug_line parsing
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 2:40 PM Jonas Devlieghere <jonas at devlieghere.com> wrote:> Hey James, > > This sounds really interesting. A few things that come to mind: > > - I'm curious what kind of errors you'd be okay with in dump mode but > not in consumer mode. From LLDB's perspective, we probably want to > extract as much information as possible from a malformed line table, > as long as we don't end up lying of course. > - I need to take another look at the code, but don't we already have > something similar where the consumer can decide how to deal with these > kinds of issues? I'm bringing this up because I don't think we really > need different parsing modes. I think we need to let the consumer > decide what to do with the potential errors. The verifier in dwarfdump > would presumably stop after the first error (~strict mode) while the > dumper would just move on. Would the parsing modes then be a set of > "presets" with regards to how to handle these issues? > - I'm in favor of creating these error messages lazily, especially > for LLDB where we care about responsiveness. However, that does > conflict with the behavior you want for the DWARF verifier. We > probably want a way to control this? >For my part - I'd imagine the verifier would be an aggressive reader of DWARF - it'd use the same lazy/high quality error API, but the verifier code itself would try to walk all of the parts of the DWARF to manifest any lazy error cases, rather than needing any other codepath in the parser.> > Cheers, > Jonas > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:26 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > (mailing lists can be busy - best to include any known-relevant parties > on the 'to' line to help highlight the discussion for them) > > > > My take on it: I'd be OK with only a strict mode with good error > messages lazily created. (so you don't get an error if you never needed to > parse/lookup a file name, for instance - don't want the strict mode to be > inefficient by aggressively parsing portions of the file you don't end up > needing) If there are cases where consumers just need to be able to read > invalid DWARF, yeah, could jump that hurdle when it comes up in a few ways > I guess. > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 3:03 AM James Henderson via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I'm preparing to propose some additional error checks for the DWARF > debug line parser which we have locally. However, there have been some > valid comments in the past that some errors really shouldn't prevent > parsing for certain situations. For example, a line_range of 0 would only > be an issue if anything needed that information (and would consequently > divide by zero), whilst the include directories and file names table should > be terminated with null bytes, but the parser could use the header length > field to identify when the tables have ended instead. > >> > >> After a brief discussion with Paul Robinson offline, I think it would > be good to add different parsing modes to the debug line parser. I've got > three possible categories: > >> 1) "Dump" mode - this would be the most lenient mode. It is intended > for tools like llvm-dwarfdump that merely want to print the contents to the > best of their ability, even if the table is malformed/dodgy in some other > way. It might print warnings, but these should not prevent it continuing to > parse what it can. > >> 2) "Strict" or "Verify" mode - this would be the strictest mode, which > would emit an error if it sees things like the aforementioned bad > line_range or filenames tables. Optionally, we could even extend this to > also cover things like addresses that don't make sense (possibly with or > without special handling for fixups for GC-sections-processed output), or > that could be a further mode. > >> 3) "Consumer" mode - this would be somewhere in between the two above > modes and would essentially do whatever a consumer such as LLDB wants. It > might not need to be as strict as the "Strict" mode, but some guidance here > from the consumers would be best. > >> > >> I haven't yet worked out exactly how this would work, but I think it > would probably fit into the existing error handling mechanism, either with > some extra conditionals or similar that say whether to report an error or > not. I will hopefully be putting up some proposed patches later this week > that illustrate all this. > >> > >> I'd appreciate any thoughts people have on the different modes, whether > we would need more/fewer, what they'd each cover etc. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> James > >> _______________________________________________ > >> LLVM Developers mailing list > >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191216/1cc484d0/attachment.html>
Pavel Labath via llvm-dev
2019-Dec-17 08:38 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC][DWARF] Handling errors in DWARF .debug_line parsing
On 16/12/2019 23:47, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote:> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 2:40 PM Jonas Devlieghere <jonas at devlieghere.com > <mailto:jonas at devlieghere.com>> wrote: > > Hey James, > > This sounds really interesting. A few things that come to mind: > > - I'm curious what kind of errors you'd be okay with in dump mode but > not in consumer mode. From LLDB's perspective, we probably want to > extract as much information as possible from a malformed line table, > as long as we don't end up lying of course. > - I need to take another look at the code, but don't we already have > something similar where the consumer can decide how to deal with these > kinds of issues? I'm bringing this up because I don't think we really > need different parsing modes. I think we need to let the consumer > decide what to do with the potential errors. The verifier in dwarfdump > would presumably stop after the first error (~strict mode) while the > dumper would just move on. Would the parsing modes then be a set of > "presets" with regards to how to handle these issues? > - I'm in favor of creating these error messages lazily, especially > for LLDB where we care about responsiveness. However, that does > conflict with the behavior you want for the DWARF verifier. We > probably want a way to control this? > > > For my part - I'd imagine the verifier would be an aggressive reader of > DWARF - it'd use the same lazy/high quality error API, but the verifier > code itself would try to walk all of the parts of the DWARF to manifest > any lazy error cases, rather than needing any other codepath in the parser.That would be my ideal setup as well (disclaimer: I work on lldb) -- have the parser provide sufficient information so that the verification can be done from the "outside". That is, if the goal is to have stronger verification of generated line tables -- it's not fully clear (to me) whether that's your main motivation for adding these checks. regards, pavel
Apparently Analagous Threads
- [RFC][DWARF] Handling errors in DWARF .debug_line parsing
- [RFC][DWARF] Handling errors in DWARF .debug_line parsing
- addition of vendor dwarf operator extension.
- Adding DWARF5 accelerator table support to llvm
- [lldb-dev] Adding DWARF5 accelerator table support to llvm