-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 737
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Command namebreak seems to be broken #707
Comments
Fixed on dev by #708. Could you please verify? |
No, this doesn't fix the issue completely.
So, for direct addresses, it will still create a wrong breakpoint (addresses have to be passed with a * and the fix makes it to a **), because it will dereference the address before passing it to And for breakpoints on symbols this only works, because you can put as many *s before I don't see the need of calling Changing the fix to:
results in almost same behaviour for all three cases like normal
Default |
After checking the code a bit more, it's even easier to fix it properly, by just setting the default value for address if none is given to Then, no parsing would be needed at all, and we can just pass the user input forward. Looks like the cleanest solution to me for now. |
dev
branch?gdb -nx
the closed ones) - and the PR?
Step 1: Describe your environment
version
in GEF.Step 2: Describe your problem
namebreak
isn't working anymore as expected.namebreak
supported adding breakpoints on direct addresses as for symbols or currentip
.Examples:
nb test *main+120
nb test2 *0x400650
nb test3
All those commands now result in an error message in current
gef
(seeObserved results
)Reason for this seems to be, that the parsing of the user argument for the breakpoint address has been changed from:
to a new parsing style:
The output of
parse_address
though doesn't seem to play well with theBreakpoint
class.After changing it back to something more like the old version (using $pc variable also didn't work for me):
namebreak
worked again, as it used to (with direct addresses, symbols and current pc).Though I assume, you tried to achieve something else with the new parsing attributes there, so I didn't create a pull request, since this fix doesn't seem to fit into the attribute based parsing, so maybe you can come up with a better solution (but at least this fixed it for me again).
Steps to reproduce
nb test *main+10
Observed Results
Expected results
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: