gdb addresses: 0x565561f5 instead of 0x41414141 - c

Question

I want to try a buffer overflow on a c program. I compiled it like this gcc -fno-stack-protector -m32 buggy_program.c with gcc. If i run this program in gdb and i overflow the buffer, it should said 0x41414141, because i sent A's. But its saying 0x565561f5. Sorry for my bad english. Can somebody help me?
This is the source code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
char buffer[64];
printf("Type in something: ");
gets(buffer);
}
Starting program: /root/Downloads/a.out
Type in something: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x565561f5 in main ()
I want to see this:
Starting program: /root/Downloads/a.out
Type in something: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x41414141 in main ()

Answer 1

Looking at the address at which the process segfaulted shows the relevant line in the disassembled code:
gdb a.out <<EOF
set logging on
r < inp
disassemble main
x/i $eip
p/x $esp
Produces the following output:
(gdb) Starting program: .../a.out < in
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x08048482 in main (argc=, argv=) at tmp.c:10 10 }
(gdb) Dump of assembler code for function main:
0x08048436 <+0>: lea 0x4(%esp),%ecx
0x0804843a <+4>: and $0xfffffff0,%esp
0x0804843d <+7>: pushl -0x4(%ecx)
0x08048440 <+10>: push %ebp
0x08048441 <+11>: mov %esp,%ebp
0x08048443 <+13>: push %ebx
0x08048444 <+14>: push %ecx
0x08048445 <+15>: sub $0x40,%esp
0x08048448 <+18>: call
0x8048370 <__x86.get_pc_thunk.bx>
0x0804844d <+23>: add $0x1bb3,%ebx
0x08048453 <+29>: sub $0xc,%esp
0x08048456 <+32>: lea -0x1af0(%ebx),%eax
0x0804845c <+38>: push %eax
0x0804845d <+39>: call 0x8048300
0x08048462 <+44>: add $0x10,%esp
0x08048465 <+47>: sub $0xc,%esp
0x08048468 <+50>: lea -0x48(%ebp),%eax
0x0804846b <+53>: push %eax
0x0804846c <+54>: call 0x8048310
0x08048471 <+59>: add $0x10,%esp
0x08048474 <+62>: mov $0x0,%eax
0x08048479 <+67>: lea -0x8(%ebp),%esp
0x0804847c <+70>: pop %ecx
0x0804847d <+71>: pop %ebx
0x0804847e <+72>: pop %ebp
0x0804847f <+73>: lea -0x4(%ecx),%esp
=> 0x08048482 <+76>: ret
End of assembler dump.
(gdb) => 0x8048482 : ret
(gdb) $1 = 0x4141413d
(gdb) quit
The failing statement is the ret at the end of main. The program fails, when ret attempts to load the return-address from the top of the stack. The produced executable stores the old value of esp on the stack, before aligning to word-boundaries. When main is completed, the program attempts to restore the esp from the stack and afterwards read the return-address. However the whole top of the stack is compromised, thus rendering the new value of the stack-pointer garbage ($1 = 0x4141413d). When ret is executed, it attempts to read a word from address 0x4141413d, which isn't allocated and produces as segfault.
Notes
The above disassembly was produced from the code in the question using the following compiler-options:
-m32 -fno-stack-protector -g -O0

Answer 2

So guys, i found a solution:
Just compile it with gcc 3.3.4
gcc -m32 buggy_program.c

Answer 3

Modern operating systems use address-space-layout-randomization ASLR to make this stuff not work quite so easily.
I remember the controversy when it was first started. ASLR was kind of a bad idea for 32 bit processes due to the number of other constraints it imposed on the system and dubious security benefit. On the other hand, it works great on 64 bit processes and almost everybody uses it now.
You don't know where the code is. You don't know where the heap is. You don't know where the stack is. Writing exploits is hard now.
Also, you tried to use 32 bit shellcode and documentation on a 64 bit process.
On reading the updated question: Your code is compiled with frame pointers (which is the default). This is causing the ret instruction itself to fault because esp is trashed. ASLR appears to still be in play most likely it doesn't really matter.