i am write a mini os. And when i write this code to show time clock, its goes wrong
7 void timer_callback(pt_regs *regs)
8 {
9 static uint32_t tick = 0;
10 printf("Tick: %dtimes\n", tick);
11 tick++;
12 }
tick is initialise not with 0, but 1818389861. but if tick init with 0x01 or anything else zero, it's ok!!!
so i wirte a simple c file then objdump:
staic.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <main>:
extern void printf(char *, int);
int main(){
0: 8d 4c 24 04 lea 0x4(%esp),%ecx
4: 83 e4 f0 and $0xfffffff0,%esp
7: ff 71 fc pushl -0x4(%ecx)
a: 55 push %ebp
b: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
d: 51 push %ecx
e: 83 ec 04 sub $0x4,%esp
static int a = 1;
printf("%d\n", a);
11: a1 00 00 00 00 mov 0x0,%eax
16: 83 ec 08 sub $0x8,%esp
19: 50 push %eax
1a: 68 00 00 00 00 push $0x0
1f: e8 fc ff ff ff call 20 <main+0x20>
24: 83 c4 10 add $0x10,%esp
return 0;
27: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
}
2c: 8b 4d fc mov -0x4(%ebp),%ecx
2f: c9 leave
30: 8d 61 fc lea -0x4(%ecx),%esp
33: c3 ret
so strange, no memory used!!!
Update: let me say it clearly
the second static.c is an experiment, it was thought it show no memory used, but i was wrong, mov 0x0 %eab is. i confuse 0x0 and $0x0 /..\
my origin problem is why tick not succeed init with 0.(but can init with 1 or anyelsenumber).
i look up it again use gdb, ok, it do use memory like mov
eax,ds:0x106010,but the real strong thing is the memory x 0x106010 is not 0,but it should be, just as i said, if i let tick = 1 or anythingelse, memory do init as i want, that is the strange thing!
the tool: gdb ,objdump return different asm(different means,not formate),because, just learn os,not good at c, so i let it go,ignore it....
Memory is used, be sure of that; however, you won't find that memory in the .text section. Memory for static variables is allocated in either .bss (when zero-initialized; or, in case of C++, dynamically initialized) or .data (when non-zero initialized) section.
When dumping object files with objdump using the -d (disassembly) option, it is important to also use the -r (relocations) option. Without that, the disassembly you get is deceiving and makes little sense.
In your case, the instruction at addresses 11 and 1f must have relocations, at address 11, to the variable a and at address 1f, to the function printf. The instruction at address 11 loads the value from your variable a, without proper relocations it looks as if it loaded a value from address 0.
As to your original question, the value you get, 1818389861, or 0x6C626D65, is quite remarkable. I would bet that somewhere in your program you have a buffer overrun involving a string containing the subsequence embl.
As a side note, I would like to call your attention to the use of correct type specifications in printf calls. The type specification %d corresponds to the type int; on all modern mainstream architectures, int and int32_t are of the same size. However, that is not guaranteed to always be so. There are special type specifications for use with explicitly-sized types, for example, for an int32_t you use "PRId32":
uint32_t x;
printf("%"PRId32, x);
Related
I am working through the OverTheWire wargames and one of my exploits overwrites the return address of main with the address of system. I have then used the fact that at the point main returns, esp is still pointing at one of my local variables and hence I can fill it with the command I want system to run (e.g. sh;#).
My confusion comes from that I thought functions in C reclaim the stack before returning and hence at the point the return address is called the stack pointer would be pointing at the return address rather than at the local variables. However, my exploit works so it seems that my stack pointer is pointing at the local variables when the return address is called.
The main thing I have noticed about this particular challenge compared to others is that it calls exit(0) at the end, instead of just ending, so the assembly doesn't end with leave, which may be the reason for this behaviour.
I haven't included the actual code since it's quite long and I was hoping there was a general explanation for what I am seeing, but please let me know if the assembly would be useful.
#include <stdio.h>
int main ( void )
{
printf("hello\n");
return(0);
}
the interesting relevant parts.
0000000000400430 <main>:
400430: 48 83 ec 08 sub $0x8,%rsp
400434: bf d4 05 40 00 mov $0x4005d4,%edi
400439: e8 c2 ff ff ff callq 400400 <puts#plt>
40043e: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
400440: 48 83 c4 08 add $0x8,%rsp
400444: c3 retq
400445: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
40044c: 00 00 00
40044f: 90 nop
0000000000400450 <_start>:
400450: 31 ed xor %ebp,%ebp
400452: 49 89 d1 mov %rdx,%r9
400455: 5e pop %rsi
400456: 48 89 e2 mov %rsp,%rdx
400459: 48 83 e4 f0 and $0xfffffffffffffff0,%rsp
40045d: 50 push %rax
40045e: 54 push %rsp
40045f: 49 c7 c0 c0 05 40 00 mov $0x4005c0,%r8
400466: 48 c7 c1 50 05 40 00 mov $0x400550,%rcx
40046d: 48 c7 c7 30 04 40 00 mov $0x400430,%rdi
400474: e8 97 ff ff ff callq 400410 <__libc_start_main#plt>
400479: f4 hlt
40047a: 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
For the most part there is nothing special about main nor printf, etc these are just functions that conform to the calling convention. As re-asked SO questions will show sometimes the compiler will add extra stack or other calls when it sees a main() that it doesnt otherwise. but still it is a function that needs to conform to the calling convention. As seen in this case where the stack pointer is put back where it was found.
Before an operating system (Linux, Windows, MacOS, etc) can even think about running a program it needs to allocate some space for that program and tag that memory for that program in some way depending on the features of the processor and the OS, etc. Then you load the program from whatever media, and launch it at the binary file specified and/or well known entry point. A clean exit of the program will cause the operating system to free that memory, which the .text, .data, .bss and stack are the trivial/obvious ones that just go away as their memory just goes away. Other items that may have been allocated and associated with this program, open files, runtime allocated (not stack) memory, etc can/should also be freed, depends on the design of the os and/or the C library as to how that happens.
In the above case we see the bootstrap calls main and main returns then hlt is hit which this is an application not kernel code so that should cause a trap that causes the OS to clean up. An explicit exit() should be no different than a printf() or puts() or fopen() or any other function that ultimately makes one or more syscalls to the operating system. All that you can possibly find for these types of operating systems (Linux, Windows, MacOS) is the syscall. The release of memory happens outside the program as the program does not have control over it, would be a chicken and egg problem, program frees mmu tables that is using to free mmu tables...
compile and disassemble the object for main rather than the whole program
0000000000000000 <main>:
0: 48 83 ec 08 sub $0x8,%rsp
4: bf 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%edi
9: e8 00 00 00 00 callq e <main+0xe>
e: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
10: 48 83 c4 08 add $0x8,%rsp
14: c3 retq
no surprise there same as before, all we needed to see to understand that the stack was cleaned up before return. and that main is not special:
#include <stdio.h>
int notmain ( void )
{
printf("hello\n");
return(0);
}
0000000000000000 <notmain>:
0: 48 83 ec 08 sub $0x8,%rsp
4: bf 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%edi
9: e8 00 00 00 00 callq e <notmain+0xe>
e: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
10: 48 83 c4 08 add $0x8,%rsp
14: c3 retq
Now if you are asking if there is an exit() within main then sure it wont hit the return point in main so the stack pointer is offset by whatever amount. but if main calls some function and that function calls some function then that function calls exit() then the stack pointer is left at the stack frame point of function number two plus whatever the call (this is an x86) plus the exit() stack frame adds to it. You cannot simply assume that when exit() is called, if it is called, what the stack pointer is pointing at. You would have to examine the disassembly around that call to exit() plus the exit() code and anything it calls, to figure this out.
so I've started learning about machine language today. I wrote a basic "Hello World" program in C which prints "Hello, world!" ten times using a for loop. I then used the Gnu Debugger to disassemble main and look at the code in machine language (my computer has a x86 processor and I've set gdb up to use intel syntax):
user#PC:~/Path/To/Code$ gdb -q ./a.out
Reading symbols from ./a.out...done.
(gdb) list
1 #include <stdio.h>
2
3 int main()
4 {
5 int i;
6 for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
7 printf("Hello, world!\n");
8 }
9 return 0;
10 }
(gdb) disassemble main
Dump of assembler code for function main:
0x0804841d <+0>: push ebp
0x0804841e <+1>: mov ebp,esp
0x08048420 <+3>: and esp,0xfffffff0
0x08048423 <+6>: sub esp,0x20
0x08048426 <+9>: mov DWORD PTR [esp+0x1c],0x0
0x0804842e <+17>: jmp 0x8048441 <main+36>
0x08048430 <+19>: mov DWORD PTR [esp],0x80484e0
0x08048437 <+26>: call 0x80482f0 <puts#plt>
0x0804843c <+31>: add DWORD PTR [esp+0x1c],0x1
0x08048441 <+36>: cmp DWORD PTR [esp+0x1c],0x9
0x08048446 <+41>: jle 0x8048430 <main+19>
0x08048448 <+43>: mov eax,0x0
0x0804844d <+48>: leave
0x0804844e <+49>: ret
End of assembler dump.
(gdb) x/s 0x80484e0
0x80484e0: "Hello, world!"
I understand most of the machine code and what each of the commands do. If I understood it correctly, the address "0x80484e0" is loaded into the esp register so that can use the memory at this address. I examined the address, and to no surprise it contained the desired string. My question now is - how did that string get there in the first place? I can't find a part in the program that sets the string up at this location.
I also don't understand something else: When I first start the program, the eip points to , where the variable i is initialized at [esp+0x1c]. However, the address that esp points to is changed later on in the program (to 0x80484e0), but [esp+0x1c] is still used for "i" after that change. Shouldn't the adress [esp+0x1c] change when the address esp points to changes?
I binary or program is made up of both machine code and data. In this case your string which you put in the source code, the compiler too that data which is just bytes, and because of how it was used was considered read only data, so depending on the compiler that might land in .rodata or .text or some other name the compiler might use. Gcc would probably call it .rodata. The program itself is in .text. The linker comes along and when it links things finds a place for .text, .data, .bss, .rodata, and any other items you may have and then connects the dots. In the case of your call to printf the linker knows where it put the string, the array of bytes, and it was told what its name was (some internal temporary name no doubt) and the printf call was told about that name to so the linker patches up the instruction to grab the address to the format string before calling printf.
Disassembly of section .text:
0000000000400430 <main>:
400430: 53 push %rbx
400431: bb 0a 00 00 00 mov $0xa,%ebx
400436: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
40043d: 00 00 00
400440: bf e4 05 40 00 mov $0x4005e4,%edi
400445: e8 b6 ff ff ff callq 400400 <puts#plt>
40044a: 83 eb 01 sub $0x1,%ebx
40044d: 75 f1 jne 400440 <main+0x10>
40044f: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
400451: 5b pop %rbx
400452: c3 retq
400453: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
40045a: 00 00 00
40045d: 0f 1f 00 nopl (%rax)
Disassembly of section .rodata:
00000000004005e0 <_IO_stdin_used>:
4005e0: 01 00 add %eax,(%rax)
4005e2: 02 00 add (%rax),%al
4005e4: 48 rex.W
4005e5: 65 6c gs insb (%dx),%es:(%rdi)
4005e7: 6c insb (%dx),%es:(%rdi)
4005e8: 6f outsl %ds:(%rsi),(%dx)
4005e9: 2c 20 sub $0x20,%al
4005eb: 77 6f ja 40065c <__GNU_EH_FRAME_HDR+0x68>
4005ed: 72 6c jb 40065b <__GNU_EH_FRAME_HDR+0x67>
4005ef: 64 21 00 and %eax,%fs:(%rax)
the compiler will have encoded this instruction but left the address as zeros probably or some fill
400440: bf e4 05 40 00 mov $0x4005e4,%edi
so that the linker could fill it in later. The gnu disassembler attempts to disassemble the .rodata (and .data, etc) blocks which doesnt make sense, so ignore the instructions it is trying to interpret your string which starts at address 0x4005e4.
Before linking a disassembly of the object shows the two sections .text and .rodata
Disassembly of section .text.startup:
0000000000000000 <main>:
0: 53 push %rbx
1: bb 0a 00 00 00 mov $0xa,%ebx
6: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
d: 00 00 00
10: bf 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%edi
15: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 1a <main+0x1a>
1a: 83 eb 01 sub $0x1,%ebx
1d: 75 f1 jne 10 <main+0x10>
1f: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
21: 5b pop %rbx
22: c3 retq
0000000000000000 <.rodata.str1.1>:
0: 48 rex.W
1: 65 6c gs insb (%dx),%es:(%rdi)
3: 6c insb (%dx),%es:(%rdi)
4: 6f outsl %ds:(%rsi),(%dx)
5: 2c 20 sub $0x20,%al
7: 77 6f ja 78 <main+0x78>
9: 72 6c jb 77 <main+0x77>
b: 64 21 00 and %eax,%fs:(%rax)
unlinked it has to just pad this address/offset for the linker to fill in later.
10: bf 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%edi
also note the object contains only the string in .rodata. linking with libraries and other items to make it a complete program clearly added more .rodata, but the linker manages all of that.
Perhaps easier to see with this example
void more_fun ( unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int );
unsigned int a;
unsigned int b=5;
const unsigned int c=7;
void fun ( void )
{
more_fun(a,b,c);
}
disassembled as a object
Disassembly of section .text:
0000000000000000 <fun>:
0: 8b 35 00 00 00 00 mov 0x0(%rip),%esi # 6 <fun+0x6>
6: 8b 3d 00 00 00 00 mov 0x0(%rip),%edi # c <fun+0xc>
c: ba 07 00 00 00 mov $0x7,%edx
11: e9 00 00 00 00 jmpq 16 <fun+0x16>
Disassembly of section .data:
0000000000000000 <b>:
0: 05 .byte 0x5
1: 00 00 add %al,(%rax)
...
Disassembly of section .rodata:
0000000000000000 <c>:
0: 07 (bad)
1: 00 00 add %al,(%rax)
...
and for whatever reason you have to link it to see the .bss section. The point of the example is the machine code for the function is in .text, the uninitialized global is in .bss, the initialized global is .data and the const initialized global is .rodata. The compiler was smart enough to know that a const even if it is global wont change so it can just hardcode that value into the math and not need to read from ram, but the other two variables it has to read from ram so generates an instruction with the address zeros to be filled in by the linker at link time.
In your case your read only/const data was a collection of bytes and it wasnt a math operation so the bytes as defined in your source file were placed in memory so they could be pointed at as the first parameter to printf.
There is more to a binary than just machine code. And the compiler and linker can have things placed in memory for the machine code to get, the machine code itself does not have to write every value that will be used by the rest of the machine code.
The compiler 'hard wires' the string into the object code and the linker then 'hard wires' it into the machine code.
Not that the string is embedded into the code, and not stored in a data area meaning that if you took a pointer to the string and attempted to change it you would get an exception.
I've been working with C for a short while and very recently started to get into ASM. When I compile a program:
int main(void)
{
int a = 0;
a += 1;
return 0;
}
The objdump disassembly has the code, but nops after the ret:
...
08048394 <main>:
8048394: 55 push %ebp
8048395: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
8048397: 83 ec 10 sub $0x10,%esp
804839a: c7 45 fc 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,-0x4(%ebp)
80483a1: 83 45 fc 01 addl $0x1,-0x4(%ebp)
80483a5: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
80483aa: c9 leave
80483ab: c3 ret
80483ac: 90 nop
80483ad: 90 nop
80483ae: 90 nop
80483af: 90 nop
...
From what I learned nops do nothing, and since after ret wouldn't even be executed.
My question is: why bother? Couldn't ELF(linux-x86) work with a .text section(+main) of any size?
I'd appreciate any help, just trying to learn.
First of all, gcc doesn't always do this. The padding is controlled by -falign-functions, which is automatically turned on by -O2 and -O3:
-falign-functions
-falign-functions=n
Align the start of functions to the next power-of-two greater than n, skipping up to n bytes. For instance,
-falign-functions=32 aligns functions to the next 32-byte boundary, but -falign-functions=24 would align to the next 32-byte boundary only
if this can be done by skipping 23 bytes or less.
-fno-align-functions and -falign-functions=1 are equivalent and mean that functions will not be aligned.
Some assemblers only support this flag when n is a power of two; in
that case, it is rounded up.
If n is not specified or is zero, use a machine-dependent default.
Enabled at levels -O2, -O3.
There could be multiple reasons for doing this, but the main one on x86 is probably this:
Most processors fetch instructions in aligned 16-byte or 32-byte blocks. It can be
advantageous to align critical loop entries and subroutine entries by 16 in order to minimize
the number of 16-byte boundaries in the code. Alternatively, make sure that there is no 16-byte boundary in the first few instructions after a critical loop entry or subroutine entry.
(Quoted from "Optimizing subroutines in assembly
language" by Agner Fog.)
edit: Here is an example that demonstrates the padding:
// align.c
int f(void) { return 0; }
int g(void) { return 0; }
When compiled using gcc 4.4.5 with default settings, I get:
align.o: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
0000000000000000 <f>:
0: 55 push %rbp
1: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
4: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
9: c9 leaveq
a: c3 retq
000000000000000b <g>:
b: 55 push %rbp
c: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
f: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
14: c9 leaveq
15: c3 retq
Specifying -falign-functions gives:
align.o: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
0000000000000000 <f>:
0: 55 push %rbp
1: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
4: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
9: c9 leaveq
a: c3 retq
b: eb 03 jmp 10 <g>
d: 90 nop
e: 90 nop
f: 90 nop
0000000000000010 <g>:
10: 55 push %rbp
11: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
14: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
19: c9 leaveq
1a: c3 retq
This is done to align the next function by 8, 16 or 32-byte boundary.
From “Optimizing subroutines in assembly language” by A.Fog:
11.5 Alignment of code
Most microprocessors fetch code in aligned 16-byte or 32-byte blocks. If an importantsubroutine entry or jump label happens to be near the end of a 16-byte block then themicroprocessor will only get a few useful bytes of code when fetching that block of code. Itmay have to fetch the next 16 bytes too before it can decode the first instructions after thelabel. This can be avoided by aligning important subroutine entries and loop entries by 16.
[...]
Aligning a subroutine entry is as simple as putting as many
NOP
's as needed before thesubroutine entry to make the address divisible by 8, 16, 32 or 64, as desired.
As far as I remember, instructions are pipelined in cpu and different cpu blocks (loader, decoder and such) process subsequent instructions. When RET instructions is being executed, few next instructions are already loaded into cpu pipeline. It's a guess, but you can start digging here and if you find out (maybe the specific number of NOPs that are safe, share your findings please.
Assembly newbie here... I wrote the following simple C program:
void fun(int x, int* y)
{
char arr[4];
int* sp;
sp = y;
}
int main()
{
int i = 4;
fun(i, &i);
return 0;
}
I compiled it with gcc and ran objdump with -S, but the Assembly code output is confusing me:
000000000040055d <fun>:
void fun(int x, int* y)
{
40055d: 55 push %rbp
40055e: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
400561: 48 83 ec 30 sub $0x30,%rsp
400565: 89 7d dc mov %edi,-0x24(%rbp)
400568: 48 89 75 d0 mov %rsi,-0x30(%rbp)
40056c: 64 48 8b 04 25 28 00 mov %fs:0x28,%rax
400573: 00 00
400575: 48 89 45 f8 mov %rax,-0x8(%rbp)
400579: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
char arr[4];
int* sp;
sp = y;
40057b: 48 8b 45 d0 mov -0x30(%rbp),%rax
40057f: 48 89 45 e8 mov %rax,-0x18(%rbp)
}
400583: 48 8b 45 f8 mov -0x8(%rbp),%rax
400587: 64 48 33 04 25 28 00 xor %fs:0x28,%rax
40058e: 00 00
400590: 74 05 je 400597 <fun+0x3a>
400592: e8 a9 fe ff ff callq 400440 <__stack_chk_fail#plt>
400597: c9 leaveq
400598: c3 retq
0000000000400599 <main>:
int main()
{
400599: 55 push %rbp
40059a: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
40059d: 48 83 ec 10 sub $0x10,%rsp
int i = 4;
4005a1: c7 45 fc 04 00 00 00 movl $0x4,-0x4(%rbp)
fun(i, &i);
4005a8: 8b 45 fc mov -0x4(%rbp),%eax
4005ab: 48 8d 55 fc lea -0x4(%rbp),%rdx
4005af: 48 89 d6 mov %rdx,%rsi
4005b2: 89 c7 mov %eax,%edi
4005b4: e8 a4 ff ff ff callq 40055d <fun>
return 0;
4005b9: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
}
4005be: c9 leaveq
4005bf: c3 retq
First, in the line:
400561: 48 83 ec 30 sub $0x30,%rsp
Why is the stack pointer decremented so much in the call to 'fun' (48 bytes)? I assume it has to do with alignment issues, but I cannot visualize why it would need so much space (I only count 12 bytes for local variables (assuming 8 byte pointers))?
Second, I thought that in x86_64, the arguments to a function are either stored in specific registers, or if there are a lot of them, just 'above' (with a downward growing stack) the base pointer, %rbp. Like in the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_stack#Structure except 'upside-down'.
But the lines:
400565: 89 7d dc mov %edi,-0x24(%rbp)
400568: 48 89 75 d0 mov %rsi,-0x30(%rbp)
suggest to me that they are being stored way down from the base of the stack (%rsi and %edi are where main put the arguments, right before calling 'fun', and 0x30 down from %rbp is exactly where the stack pointer is pointing...). And when I try to do stuff with them , like assigning their values to local variables, it grabs them from those locations near the head of the stack:
sp = y;
40057b: 48 8b 45 d0 mov -0x30(%rbp),%rax
40057f: 48 89 45 e8 mov %rax,-0x18(%rbp)
... what is going on here?! I would expect them to grab the arguments from either the registers they were stored in, or just above the base pointer, where I thought they are 'supposed to be', according to every basic tutorial I read. Every answer and post I found on here related to stack frame questions confirms my understanding of what stack frames "should" look like, so why is my Assembly output so darn weird?
Because that stuff is a hideously simplified version of what really goes on. It's like wondering why Newtonian mechanics doesn't model the movement of the planets down to the millimeter. Compilers need stack space for all sorts of things. For example, saving callee-saved registers.
Also, the fundamental fact is that debug-mode compilations contain all sorts of debugging and checking machinery. The compiler outputs all sorts of code that checks that your code is correct, for example the call to __stack_chk_fail.
There are only two ways to understand the output of a given compiler. The first is to implement the compiler, or be otherwise very familiar with the implementation. The second is to accept that whatever you understand is a gross simplification. Pick one.
Because you're compiling without optimization, the compiler does lots of extra stuff to maybe make things easier to debug, which use lots of extra space.
it does not attempt to compress the stack frame to reuse memory for anything, or get rid of any unused things.
it redundantly copies the arguments into the stack frame (which requires still more memory)
it copies a 'canary' on to the stack to guard against stack smashing buffer overflows (even though they can't happen in this code).
Try turning on optimization, and you'll see more real code.
This is 64 bit code. 0x30 of stack space corresponds to 6 slots on the stack. You have what appears to be:
2 slots for function arguments (which happen also to be passed in registers)
2 slots for local variables
1 slot for saving the AX register
1 slot looks like a stack guard, probably related to DEBUG mode.
Best thing is to experiment rather than ask questions. Try compiling in different modes (DEBUG, optimisation, etc), and with different numbers and types of arguments and variables. Sometimes asking other people is just too easy -- you learn better by doing your own experiments.
I have written a simple Hello World program.
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
printf("Hello World");
return 0;
}
I wanted to understand how the relocatable object file and executable file look like.
The object file corresponding to the main function is
0000000000000000 <main>:
0: 55 push %rbp
1: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
4: bf 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%edi
9: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
e: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 13 <main+0x13>
13: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
18: c9 leaveq
19: c3 retq
Here the function call for printf is callq 13. One thing i don't understand is why is it 13. That means call the function at adresss 13, right??. 13 has the next instruction, right?? Please explain me what does this mean??
The executable code corresponding to main is
00000000004004cc <main>:
4004cc: 55 push %rbp
4004cd: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
4004d0: bf dc 05 40 00 mov $0x4005dc,%edi
4004d5: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
4004da: e8 e1 fe ff ff callq 4003c0 <printf#plt>
4004df: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
4004e4: c9 leaveq
4004e5: c3 retq
Here it is callq 4003c0. But the binary instruction is e8 e1 fe ff ff. There is nothing that corresponds to 4003c0. What is that i am getting wrong?
Thanks.
Bala
In the first case, take a look at the instruction encoding - it's all zeroes where the function address would go. That's because the object hasn't been linked yet, so the addresses for external symbols haven't been hooked up yet. When you do the final link into the executable format, the system sticks another placeholder in there, and then the dynamic linker will finally add the correct address for printf() at runtime. Here's a quick example for a "Hello, world" program I wrote.
First, the disassembly of the object file:
00000000 <_main>:
0: 8d 4c 24 04 lea 0x4(%esp),%ecx
4: 83 e4 f0 and $0xfffffff0,%esp
7: ff 71 fc pushl -0x4(%ecx)
a: 55 push %ebp
b: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
d: 51 push %ecx
e: 83 ec 04 sub $0x4,%esp
11: e8 00 00 00 00 call 16 <_main+0x16>
16: c7 04 24 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,(%esp)
1d: e8 00 00 00 00 call 22 <_main+0x22>
22: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
27: 83 c4 04 add $0x4,%esp
2a: 59 pop %ecx
2b: 5d pop %ebp
2c: 8d 61 fc lea -0x4(%ecx),%esp
2f: c3 ret
Then the relocations:
main.o: file format pe-i386
RELOCATION RECORDS FOR [.text]:
OFFSET TYPE VALUE
00000012 DISP32 ___main
00000019 dir32 .rdata
0000001e DISP32 _puts
As you can see there's a relocation there for _puts, which is what the call to printf turned into. That relocation will get noticed at link time and fixed up. In the case of dynamic library linking, the relocations and fixups might not get fully resolved until the program is running, but you'll get the idea from this example, I hope.
The target of the call in the E8 instruction (call) is specified as relative offset from the current instruction pointer (IP) value.
In your first code sample the offset is obviously 0x00000000. It basically says
call +0
The actual address of printf is not known yet, so the compiler just put the 32-bit value 0x00000000 there as a placeholder.
Such incomplete call with zero offset will naturally be interpreted as the call to the current IP value. On your platform, the IP is pre-incremented, meaning that when some instruction is executed, the IP contains the address of the next instruction. I.e. when instruction at the address 0xE is executed the IP contains value 0x13. And the call +0 is naturally interpreted as the call to instruction 0x13. This is why you see that 0x13 in the disassembly of the incomplete code.
Once the code is complete, the placeholder 0x00000000 offset is replaced with the actual offset of printf function in the code. The offset can be positive (forward) or negative (backward). In your case the IP at the moment of the call is 0x4004DF, while the address of printf function is 0x4003C0. For this reason, the machine instruction will contain a 32-bit offset value equal to 0x4003C0 - 0x4004DF, which is negative value -287. So what you see in the code is actually
call -287
-287 is 0xFFFFFEE1 in binary. This is exactly what you see in your machine code. It is just that the tool you are using displayed it backwards.
Calls are relative in x86, IIRC if you have e8 , the call location is addr+5.
e1 fe ff ff a is little endian encoded relative jump. It really means fffffee1.
Now add this to the address of the call instruction + 5:
(0xfffffee1 + 0x4004da + 5) % 2**32 = 0x4003c0