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

agj behaviour (graph.from, graph.to) #9716

Closed
xarkes opened this Issue Mar 16, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@xarkes
Collaborator

xarkes commented Mar 16, 2018

Currently agj @ 0 prints all the functions from the binary into a single json array.
I think this is used to check whether the user wants to use a range.

  • If addr == 0 and range is set, check that range
  • If addr == 0, list all the functions
  • Else list only the functions at our offset

This is not a valid behaviour to me because if a user seeks to 0 in Cutter (it can happen sometimes) then it's going to do agj @ 0 and freeze for some seconds depending on the amount of functions.
Can we handle the address 0 as any address and find something else to list all the functions (if that's the intended behaviour) and detect range usage?

@xarkes xarkes added the question label Mar 16, 2018

@radare

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

radare commented Mar 17, 2018

@XVilka XVilka added the graph label Mar 17, 2018

@radare

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

radare commented Apr 28, 2018

related to #9867

@radare

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

radare commented Apr 28, 2018

open discussion in this pad https://hackmd.io/Nd6mgWwJRdOaCSYr7l2XQA?edit

@radare radare added this to the 2.6.0 milestone Apr 28, 2018

@radare

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

radare commented May 2, 2018

@thestr4ng3r

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

thestr4ng3r commented May 23, 2018

I commented in the pad because I want this fixed asap. Please give me some feedback there.

@cyanpencil

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

cyanpencil commented May 23, 2018

I'm already working on a fix, I'll send a pr before tonight...
Sorry for the delay in fixing this, but it wasn't a problem relative only to agj, but to many other ag commands and ended up rewriting most of how ag* commands are handled

@thestr4ng3r

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

thestr4ng3r commented May 23, 2018

@cyanpencil Great, thanks for the info!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment