[gdb/tui] Fix segfault in tui_find_disassembly_address

PR29040 describes a FAIL for test-case gdb.threads/next-fork-other-thread.exp
and target board unix/-m32.

The FAIL happens due to the test executable running into an assert, which is
caused by a forked child segfaulting, like so:
...
 Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
 #0  0x00000000 in ?? ()
...

I tried to reproduce the segfault with exec next-fork-other-thread-fork, using
TUI layout asm.

I set a breakpoint at fork and ran to the breakpoint, and somewhere during the
following session I ran into a gdb segfault here in
tui_find_disassembly_address:
...
	  /* Disassemble forward.  */
	  next_addr = tui_disassemble (gdbarch, asm_lines, new_low, max_lines);
	  last_addr = asm_lines.back ().addr;
...
due to asm_lines being empty after the call to tui_disassemble, while
asm_lines.back () assumes that it's not empty.

I have not been able to reproduce that segfault in that original setting, I'm
not sure of the exact scenario (though looking back it probably involved
"set detach-on-fork off").

What likely happened is that I managed to reproduce PR29040, and TUI (attempted
to) display the disassembly for address 0, which led to the gdb segfault.

When gdb_print_insn encounters an insn it cannot print because it can't read
the memory, it throws a MEMORY_ERROR that is caught by tui_disassemble.

The specific bit that causes the gdb segfault is that if gdb_print_insn throws
a MEMORY_ERROR for the first insn in tui_disassemble, it returns an empty
asm_lines.

FWIW, I did manage to reproduce the gdb segfault as follows:
...
$ gdb -q \
    -iex "set pagination off" \
    /usr/bin/rustc \
    -ex "set breakpoint pending on" \
    -ex "b dl_main" \
    -ex run \
    -ex "up 4" \
    -ex "layout asm" \
    -ex "print \$pc"
  ...
<TUI>
  ...
$1 = (void (*)()) 0x1
(gdb)
...
Now press <up>, and the segfault triggers.

Fix the segfault by handling asm_lines.empty () results of tui_disassemble in
tui_find_disassembly_address.

I've written a unit test that exercises this scenario.

Tested on x86_64-linux.

Reviewed-by: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>

PR tui/30823
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30823

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions