DavidSpickett added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Utility/StopInfoMachException.cpp:126 + Address brk_address; + if (!target.ResolveLoadAddress(fixed_bad_address, brk_address)) + return false; ---------------- vsk wrote: > DavidSpickett wrote: > > vsk wrote: > > > DavidSpickett wrote: > > > > What does it mean here that the address failed to resolve? > > > It's possible that lldb doesn't know about the image the fixed address > > > points to (it could be a garbage value). In this case we conservatively > > > don't hint that there's a ptrauth issue. > > So in that case we would report stopped due to a breakpoint, that's a > > special pac breakpoint but no pointer authentication issue? Isn't that > > confusing for the user? > > > > Maybe not because it's hinting at accidental corruption vs. deliberate > > misdirection, you probably have the experiences to inform that. > > > > This is an improvement as is so no need to change it I'm just curious. > > > > Can you add a test for this situation? Assuming you can find an address you > > know would never be valid. > The image containing the fixed address from x16 is usually loaded. If it's > not, that's indeed a very confusing situation (& would more likely than not > implicate an AppleClang bug). I don't believe the situation is made *more* > confusing because lldb declines to print a ptrauth hint. I've added a test > for this (it just sets x16 = 0xbad). Thanks, reading the test I see what you mean. You convert to `EXC_BAD_ACCESS` even if the x16 address isn't loaded, so I'm not seeing `EXC_BREAKPOINT` and wondering why I hit this breakpoint that I didn't add. (didn't add manually at least) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D102428/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D102428 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
