Re: [DynInst_API:] BPatch_binaryEdit openBinary crashing

[Aleksandar Nikolic <nikolic.alek@xxxxxxxxx>]

I seem to have tracked down the cause of all my issues, at least
partialy, to this piece of code in binaryEdit:

base += (1024*1024);
base -= (base & (1024*1024-1));

in openFile

Now, this base adjustment clearly has a purpose, but if commented out,
the instrumented PE file that is produced has a good import table
and good trampolines to instrumentation code.
I guess it's required for opening other (non PE) files?

On 02/25/2015 07:59 PM, Bill Williams wrote:
> 
>>> I'll take a look at the patches over the next couple of days, but this
>>> all sounds very promising.
>>>
>>> I don't have a definite answer for the trampoline issue, but I'd look at
>>> whether there's a similar issue to the one with the imports where we
>>> generated branches before .dyninst was fixed and didn't recalculate
>>> them. The springboard code is very good at doing what it's told, so I'd
>>> strongly suspect that we moved the section of relocated code after we
>>> generated springboards.
>>>
>>
>> It would seem that that is the case. If if fix the base address
>> "manually", it sort of works. As my patch for imports is hacky, is
>> there a part of the API that does the recalculations or should I do
>> them myself?
>>
> If memory serves, what we do on Linux is ensure that .dyninstInst is
> created somewhere fixed (end of the binary, more or less), so that we
> can actually generate the code correctly at instrumentation time. That's
> going to be the safest/easiest approach, I think--otherwise we might
> need to replace 5-byte near branches with longer code sequences and
> wholly regenerate the section contents.
> 
>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> On 02/11/2015 06:20 PM, Matthew LeGendre wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> At one point, perhaps 6-7 years ago, a student had windows binary
>>>>> rewriting working to the point where you could do basic binary
>>>>> rewriting
>>>>> on notepad.exe.  They left before finishing the project, and it was
>>>>> never feature complete nor functional on complicated binaries.  You're
>>>>> likely seeing the remains of that effort.  I don't know how much of
>>>>> that
>>>>> code is still valid or useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Aleksandar Nikolic wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> looking at the codebase, a lot of code seems to already be there.
>>>>>> I'll be getting to know the code in more details. Any directions
>>>>>> into what would need to be implemented or what parts are missing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/08/2015 10:59 PM, Barton Miller wrote:
>>>>>>> BTW, if there are any individuals or groups that would like to
>>>>>>> work on
>>>>>>> getting rewriting to work on Windows, we'd be happy to provide
>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>> Not a small effort but interesting and worthwhile.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --bart
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/6/2015 4:36 PM, Bill Williams wrote:
>>>>>>>> No, and not exactly. Windows binary rewriting is not supported,
>>>>>>>> and is
>>>>>>>> documented as such. If it were to be supported, what you are doing
>>>>>>>> would work quite reasonably.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Dyninst-api mailing list
>>>>>>> Dyninst-api@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/dyninst-api
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Dyninst-api mailing list
>>>>>> Dyninst-api@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/dyninst-api
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Dyninst-api mailing list
>>>> Dyninst-api@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/dyninst-api
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
>