extended asm: invalid instruction suffix for 'mov' - c

Using i686-elf-gcc and i686-elf-ld to compile and link.
/tmp/ccyjfCee.s:25: Error: invalid instruction suffix for 'mov'
makefile:21: recipe for target 'Release/boot.o' failed
When I tried to modify movw %0, %%dx to movw $0x1, %%dx. It compiled and linked successfully. So I wonder why there is something wrong with the line. In light of .code16, the offset address of pStr should be 16bit, which fits into dx register well. What's wrong with it?
__asm__(".code16\n");
void printString(const char* pStr) {
__asm__ __volatile__ ("movb $0x09, %%ah\n\t"
"movw %0, %%dx\n\t"
"int $0x21"
:
:"r"(pStr)
:"%ah", "%dx");
}
void _start() {
printString("Hello, World");
}

Technically you can use the .code16gcc directive to generate 16 bit code and the %w0 substitution to force word sized register.
Note that the above will only let you create a program that will run in 16 bit real mode under DOS (after some postprocessing to get it to the proper format). If that's not what you want, you will need to use the appropriate OS system calls instead of int 0x21 and not write 16 bit code.

Related

Clang 11 and GCC 8 O2 Breaks Inline Assembly

I have a short snippet of code, with some inline assembly that prints argv[0] properly in O0, but does not print anything in O2 (when using Clang. GCC, on the other hand, prints the string stored in envp[0] when printing argv[0]). This problem is also restricted to only argv (the other two function parameters can be used as expected with or without optimizations enabled). I tested this with both GCC and Clang, and both compilers have this issue.
Here is the code:
void exit(unsigned long long status) {
asm volatile("movq $60, %%rax;" //system call 60 is exit
"movq %0, %%rdi;" //return code 0
"syscall"
: //no outputs
:"r"(status)
:"rax", "rdi");
}
int open(const char *pathname, unsigned long long flags) {
asm volatile("movq $2, %%rax;" //system call 2 is open
"movq %0, %%rdi;"
"movq %1, %%rsi;"
"syscall"
: //no outputs
:"r"(pathname), "r"(flags)
:"rax", "rdi", "rsi");
return 1;
}
int write(unsigned long long fd, const void *buf, size_t count) {
asm volatile("movq $1, %%rax;" //system call 1 is write
"movq %0, %%rdi;"
"movq %1, %%rsi;"
"movq %2, %%rdx;"
"syscall"
: //no outputs
:"r"(fd), "r"(buf), "r"(count)
:"rax", "rdi", "rsi", "rdx");
return 1;
}
static void entry(unsigned long long argc, char** argv, char** envp);
/*https://www.systutorials.com/x86-64-calling-convention-by-gcc/: "The calling convention of the System V AMD64 ABI is followed on GNU/Linux. The registers RDI, RSI, RDX, RCX, R8, and R9 are used for integer and memory address arguments
and XMM0, XMM1, XMM2, XMM3, XMM4, XMM5, XMM6 and XMM7 are used for floating point arguments.
For system calls, R10 is used instead of RCX. Additional arguments are passed on the stack and the return value is stored in RAX."*/
//__attribute__((naked)) defines a pure-assembly function
__attribute__((naked)) void _start() {
asm volatile("xor %%rbp,%%rbp;" //http://dbp-consulting.com/tutorials/debugging/linuxProgramStartup.html: "%ebp,%ebp sets %ebp to zero. This is suggested by the ABI (Application Binary Interface specification), to mark the outermost frame."
"pop %%rdi;" //rdi: arg1: argc -- can be popped off the stack because it is copied onto register
"mov %%rsp, %%rsi;" //rsi: arg2: argv
"mov %%rdi, %%rdx;"
"shl $3, %%rdx;" //each argv pointer takes up 8 bytes (so multiply argc by 8)
"add $8, %%rdx;" //add size of null word at end of argv-pointer array (8 bytes)
"add %%rsp, %%rdx;" //rdx: arg3: envp
"andq $-16, %%rsp;" //align stack to 16-bits (which is required on x86-64)
"jmp %P0" //https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3467180/direct-c-function-call-using-gccs-inline-assembly: "After looking at the GCC source code, it's not exactly clear what the code P in front of a constraint means. But, among other things, it prevents GCC from putting a $ in front of constant values. Which is exactly what I need in this case."
:
:"i"(entry)
:"rdi", "rsp", "rsi", "rdx", "rbp", "memory");
}
//Function cannot be optimized-away, since it is passed-in as an argument to asm-block above
//Compiler Options: -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables;-O2;-Wall;-nostdlibinc;-nobuiltininc;-fno-builtin;-nostdlib; -nodefaultlibs;--no-standard-libraries;-nostartfiles;-nostdinc++
//Linker Options: -nostdlib; -nodefaultlibs
static void entry(unsigned long long argc, char** argv, char** envp) {
int ttyfd = open("/dev/tty", O_WRONLY);
write(ttyfd, argv[0], 9);
write(ttyfd, "\n", 1);
exit(0);
}
Edit: Added syscall definitions.
Edit: Adding rcx and r11 to the clobber list for the syscalls fixed the issue for clang, but gcc to have the error.
Edit: GCC actually was not having an error, but some kind of strange error in my build system (CodeLite) made it so that the program ran some kind of partially-built program, even though GCC reported errors about it not recognizing two of the compiler flags passed-in.
For GCC, use these flags instead: -fomit-frame-pointer;-fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables;-O2;-Wall;-nostdinc;-fno-builtin;-nostdlib; -nodefaultlibs;--no-standard-libraries;-nostartfiles;-nostdinc++. You can also use these flags for Clang, due to Clang's support for the above GCC options.
You can't use extended asm in a naked function, only basic asm, according to the gcc manual. You don't need to inform the compiler of clobbered registers (since it won't do anything about them anyway; in a naked function you are responsible for all register management). And passing the address of entry in an extended operand is unnecessary; just do jmp entry.
(In my tests your code doesn't compile at all, so I assume you weren't showing us your exact code - next time please do, so as to avoid wasting people's time.)
Linux x86-64 syscall system calls are allowed to clobber the rcx and r11 registers, so you need to add those to the clobber lists of your system calls.
You align the stack to a 16-byte boundary before jumping to entry. However, the 16-byte alignment rule is based on the assumption that you will be calling the function with call, which would push an additional 8 bytes onto the stack. As such, the called function actually expects the stack to initially be, not a multiple of 16, but 8 more or less than a multiple of 16. So you are actually aligning the stack incorrectly, and this can be a cause of all sorts of mysterious trouble.
So either replace your jmp with call, or else subtract a further 8 bytes from rsp (or just push some 64-bit register of your choice).
Style note: unsigned long is already 64 bits on Linux x86-64, so it would be more idiomatic to use that in place of unsigned long long everywhere.
General hint: learn about register constraints in extended asm. You can have the compiler load your desired registers for you, instead of writing instructions in your asm to do it yourself. So your exit function could instead look like:
void exit(unsigned long status) {
asm volatile("syscall"
: //no outputs
:"a"(60), "D" (status)
:"rcx", "r11");
}
This in particular saves you a few instructions, since status is already in the %rdi register on function entry. With your original code, the compiler has to move it somewhere else so that you can then load it into %rdi yourself.
Your open function always returns 1, which will typically not be the fd that was actually opened. So if your program is run with standard output redirected, your program will write to the redirected stdout, instead of to the tty as it seems to want to do. Indeed, this makes the open syscall completely pointless, because you never use the file you opened.
You should arrange for open to return the value that was actually returned by the system call, which will be left in the %rax register when syscall returns. You can use an output operand to have this stored in a temporary variable (which the compiler will likely optimize out), and return that. You'll need to use a digit constraint since it is going in the same register as an input operand. I leave this as an exercise for you. It would likewise be nice if your write function actually returned the number of bytes written.

What ensures reads/writes of operands occurs at desired timed with extended ASM?

According to GCC's Extended ASM and Assembler Template, to keep instructions consecutive, they must be in the same ASM block. I'm having trouble understanding what provides the scheduling or timings of reads and writes to the operands in a block with multiple statements.
As an example, EBX or RBX needs to be preserved when using CPUID because, according to the ABI, the caller owns it. There are some open questions with respect to the use of EBX and RBX, so we want to preserve it unconditionally (its a requirement). So three instructions need to be encoded into a single ASM block to ensure the consecutive-ness of the instructions (re: the assembler template discussed in the first paragraph):
unsigned int __FUNC = 1, __SUBFUNC = 0;
unsigned int __EAX, __EBX, __ECX, __EDX;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"push %ebx;"
"cpuid;"
"pop %ebx"
: "=a"(__EAX), "=b"(__EBX), "=c"(__ECX), "=d"(__EDX)
: "a"(__FUNC), "c"(__SUBFUNC)
);
If the expression representing the operands is interpreted at the wrong point in time, then __EBX will be the saved EBX (and not the CPUID's EBX), which will likely be a pointer to the Global Offset Table (GOT) if PIC is enabled.
Where, exactly, does the expression specify that the store of CPUID's %EBX into __EBX should happen (1) after the PUSH %EBX; (2) after the CPUID; but (3) before the POP %EBX?
In your question you present some code that does a push and pop of ebx. The idea of saving ebx in the event that you compile with gcc using -fPIC (position independent code) is correct. It is up to our function not to clobber ebx upon return in that situation. Unfortunately the way you have defined the constraints you explicitly use ebx. Generally the compiler will warn you (error: inconsistent operand constraints in an 'asm') if you are using PIC code and you specify =b as an output constraint. Why it doesn't produce a warning for you is unusual.
To get around this problem you can let the assembler template choose a register for you. Instead of pushing and popping we simply exchange %ebx with an unused register chosen by the compiler and restore it by exchanging it back after. Since we don't wish to have the compiler clobber our input registers during the exchange we specify early clobber modifier, thus ending up with a constraint of =&r (instead of =b in the OPs code). More on modifiers can be found here. Your code (for 32 bit) would look something like:
unsigned int __FUNC = 1, __SUBFUNC = 0;
unsigned int __EAX, __EBX, __ECX, __EDX;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"xchgl\t%%ebx, %k1\n\t" \
"cpuid\n\t" \
"xchgl\t%%ebx, %k1\n\t"
: "=a"(__EAX), "=&r"(__EBX), "=c"(__ECX), "=d"(__EDX)
: "a"(__FUNC), "c"(__SUBFUNC));
If you intend to compile for X86_64 (64 bit) you'll need to save the entire contents of %rbx. The code above will not quite work. You'd have to use something like:
uint32_t __FUNC = 1, __SUBFUNC = 0;
uint32_t __EAX, __ECX, __EDX;
uint64_t __BX; /* Big enough to hold a 64 bit value */
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"xchgq\t%%rbx, %q1\n\t" \
"cpuid\n\t" \
"xchgq\t%%rbx, %q1\n\t"
: "=a"(__EAX), "=&r"(__BX), "=c"(__ECX), "=d"(__EDX)
: "a"(__FUNC), "c"(__SUBFUNC));
You could code this up using conditional compilation to deal with both X86_64 and i386:
uint32_t __FUNC = 1, __SUBFUNC = 0;
uint32_t __EAX, __ECX, __EDX;
uint64_t __BX; /* Big enough to hold a 64 bit value */
#if defined(__i386__)
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"xchgl\t%%ebx, %k1\n\t" \
"cpuid\n\t" \
"xchgl\t%%ebx, %k1\n\t"
: "=a"(__EAX), "=&r"(__BX), "=c"(__ECX), "=d"(__EDX)
: "a"(__FUNC), "c"(__SUBFUNC));
#elif defined(__x86_64__)
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"xchgq\t%%rbx, %q1\n\t" \
"cpuid\n\t" \
"xchgq\t%%rbx, %q1\n\t"
: "=a"(__EAX), "=&r"(__BX), "=c"(__ECX), "=d"(__EDX)
: "a"(__FUNC), "c"(__SUBFUNC));
#else
#error "Unknown architecture."
#endif
GCC has a __cpuid macro defined in cpuid.h. It defined the macro so that it only saves the ebx and rbx register when required. You can find the GCC 4.8.1 macro definition here to get an idea of how they handle cpuid in cpuid.h.
The astute reader may ask the question - what stops the compiler from choosing ebx or rbx as the scratch register to use for the exchange. The compiler knows about ebx and rbx in the context of PIC, and will not allow it to be used as a scratch register. This is based on my personal observations over the years and reviewing the assembler (.s) files generated from C code. I can't say for certain how more ancient versions of gcc handled it so it could be a problem.
I think you understand, but to be clear, the "consecutive" rule means that this:
asm ("a");
asm ("b");
asm ("c");
... might get other instructions interposed, so if that's not desirable then it must be rewritten like this:
asm ("a\n"
"b\n"
"c");
... and now it will be inserted as a whole.
As for the cpuid snippet, we have two problems:
The cpuid instruction will overwrite ebx, and hence clobber the data that PIC code must keep there.
We want to extract the value that cpuid places in ebx while never returning to compiled code with the "wrong" ebx value.
One possible solution would be this:
unsigned int __FUNC = 1, __SUBFUNC = 0;
unsigned int __EAX, __EBX, __ECX, __EDX;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"push %ebx;"
"cpuid;"
"mov %ebx, %ecx"
"pop %ebx"
: "=c"(__EBX)
: "a"(__FUNC), "c"(__SUBFUNC)
: "eax", "edx"
);
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"push %ebx;"
"cpuid;"
"pop %ebx"
: "=a"(__EAX), "=c"(__ECX), "=d"(__EDX)
: "a"(__FUNC), "c"(__SUBFUNC)
);
There's no need to mark ebx as clobbered as you're putting it back how you found it.
(I don't do much Intel programming, so I may have some of the assembler-specific details off there, but this is how asm works.)

GCC INLINE ASSEMBLY Won't Let Me Overwrite $esp

I'm writing code to temporarily use my own stack for experimentation. This worked when I used literal inline assembly. I was hardcoding the variable locations as offsets off of ebp. However, I wanted my code to work without haivng to hard code memory addresses into it, so I've been looking into GCC's EXTENDED INLINE ASSEMBLY. What I have is the following:
volatile intptr_t new_stack_ptr = (intptr_t) MY_STACK_POINTER;
volatile intptr_t old_stack_ptr = 0;
asm __volatile__("movl %%esp, %0\n\t"
"movl %1, %%esp"
: "=r"(old_stack_ptr) /* output */
: "r"(new_stack_ptr) /* input */
);
The point of this is to first save the stack pointer into the variable old_stack_ptr. Next, the stack pointer (%esp) is overwritten with the address I have saved in new_stack_ptr.
Despite this, I found that GCC was saving the %esp into old_stack_ptr, but was NOT replacing %esp with new_stack_ptr. Upon deeper inspection, I found it actually expanded my assembly and added it's own instructions, which are the following:
mov -0x14(%ebp),%eax
mov %esp,%eax
mov %eax,%esp
mov %eax,-0x18(%ebp)
I think GCC is trying to preserve the %esp, because I don't have it explicitly declared as an "output" operand... I could be totally wrong with this...
I really wanted to use extended inline assembly to do this, because if not, it seems like I have to "hard code" the location offsets off of %ebp into the assembly, and I'd rather use the variable names like this... especially because this code needs to work on a few different systems, which seem to all offset my variables differently, so using extended inline assembly allows me to explicitly say the variable location... but I don't understand why it is doing the extra stuff and not letting me overwrite the stack pointer like it was before, ever since I started using extended assembly, it's been doing this.
I appreciate any help!!!
Okay so the problem is gcc is allocating input and output to the same register eax. You want to tell gcc that you are clobbering the output before using the input, aka. "earlyclobber".
asm __volatile__("movl %%esp, %0\n\t"
"movl %1, %%esp"
: "=&r"(old_stack_ptr) /* output */
: "r"(new_stack_ptr) /* input */
);
Notice the & sign for the output. This should fix your code.
Update: alternatively, you could force input and output to be the same register and use xchg, like so:
asm __volatile__("xchg %%esp, %0\n\t"
: "=r"(old_stack_ptr) /* output */
: "0"(new_stack_ptr) /* input */
);
Notice the "0" that says "put this into the same register as argument 0".

what is wrong with following inline assembly code?

What is wrong with the following code?
__asm__("mov %0, %%eax" : :"a" (ptr));
__asm__(".intel_syntax noprefix");//switch to intel syntax.
asm("lidt [eax]");
I get error in compilation like this:
/tmp/cciOoSro.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/cciOoSro.s:1737: Error: no such instruction: popl %ebp
This is to load interrupt descriptor table IDT for my Os. But seems something wrong. I am not used to at&t syntax. I am used to intel syntax.
the function is to load the pointer of my idt to the processor using lidt.
void setup_idt(uint32 ptr) //to setup the idt i.e to load the idt's pointer
{
__asm__("mov %0, %%eax" : :"a" (ptr));
__asm__(".intel_syntax noprefix");//switch to intel sytax.
__asm__("lidt [eax]");
}
I think the .intel_syntax noprefix line applied to everything until the end of the source. So it tried to interpreted gcc's assembly code as Intel code.
You should:
1. Merge all assembly line into one __asm__ statement (__asm__("line one\n" "line two\n").
2. The last line should do .att_syntax prefix, to return to AT&T syntax.
Or just use AT&T syntax. It isn't so hard.

Inline assembly and function overwriting resulting in a segfault

Somebody over at SO posted a question asking how he could "hide" a function. This was my answer:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int encrypt(void)
{
char *text="Hello World";
asm("push text");
asm("call printf");
return 0;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
volatile unsigned char *i=encrypt;
while(*i!=0x00)
*i++^=0xBE;
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
but, there are problems:
encode.c: In function `main':
encode.c:13: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
C:\DOCUME~1\Aviral\LOCALS~1\Temp/ccYaOZhn.o:encode.c:(.text+0xf): undefined reference to `text'
C:\DOCUME~1\Aviral\LOCALS~1\Temp/ccYaOZhn.o:encode.c:(.text+0x14): undefined reference to `printf'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
My first question is why is the inline assembly failing ... what would be the right way to do it? Other thing -- the code for "ret" or "retn" is 0x00 , right... my code xor's stuff until it reaches a return ... so why is it SEGFAULTing?
As a high level point, I'm not quite sure why you're trying to use inline assembly to do a simple call into printf, as all you've done is create an incorrect version of a function call (your inline pushes something onto the stack, but never pop it off, most likely causing problems cause GCC isn't aware that you've modified the stack pointer in the middle of the function. This is fine in a trivial example, but could lead to non-obvious errors in a more complicated function)
Here's a correct implementation of your top function:
int encrypt(void)
{
char *text="Hello World";
char *formatString = "%s\n";
// volatile really isn't necessary but I just use it by habit
asm volatile("pushl %0;\n\t"
"pushl %1;\n\t"
"call printf;\n\t"
"addl $0x8, %%esp\n\t"
:
: "r"(text), "r"(formatString)
);
return 0;
}
As for your last question, the usual opcode for RET is "C3", but there are many variations, have a look at http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2009/readings/i386/RET.htm
Your idea of searching for RET is also faulty as due to the fact that when you see the byte 0xC3 in a random set of instructions, it does NOT mean you've encountered a ret. As the 0xC3 may simply be the data/attributes of another instruction (as a side note, it's particularly hard to try and parse x86 instructions as you're doing due to the fact x86 is a CISC architecture with instruction lengths between 1-16 bytes)
As another note, not all OS's allow modification to the text/code segment (Where executable instructions are stored), so the the code you have in main may not work regardless.
GCC inline asm uses AT&T syntax (if no specific options are selected for using Intel's one).
Here's an example:
int a=10, b;
asm ("movl %1, %%eax;
movl %%eax, %0;"
:"=r"(b) /* output */
:"r"(a) /* input */
:"%eax" /* clobbered register */
);
Thus, your problem is that "text" is not identifiable from your call (and following instruction too).
See here for reference.
Moreover your code is not portable between 32 and 64 bit environments. Compile it with -m32 flag to ensure proper analysis (GCC will complain anyway if you fall in error).
A complete solution to your problem is on this post on GCC Mailing list.
Here's a snippet:
for ( i = method->args_size - 1; i >= 0; i-- ) {
asm( "pushl %0": /* no outputs */: \
"g" (stack_frame->op_stack[i]) );
}
asm( "call *%0" : /* no outputs */ : "g" (fp) :
"%eax", "%ecx", "%edx", "%cc", "memory" );
asm ( "movl %%eax, %0" : "=g" (ret_value) : /* No inputs */ );
On windows systems there's also an additional asm ( "addl %0, %%esp" : /* No outputs */ : "g" (method->args_size * 4) ); to do. Google for better details.
It is not printf but _printf

Resources