Why are there separate objdump binaries for different toolchains, something like arm-none-eabi-objdump?
Why can't the objdump executable be used alongwith the particular switch? For example -marm to get the dump about the arm binary?
The binary files for different architectures are interpreted in a different way. So the same binary code will interpret into totally different machine instructions on different CPU architectures. As for objdump, the most clear example can be shown with --disassemble switch, which is instructing it to convert the binary into assembly instructions. But the assembly instructions are totally different for different architectures, so the objdump utility has to know the right one.
Related
Eg:
/home/gem5/build/X86/gem5.opt --debug-flags=TLB,Cache
/home/gem5/configs/example/se.py --cpu-type=DerivO3CPU --caches
--mem-type=SimpleMemory -I 10000 -c out --options="1 in_16.txt out.txt" >> test2.txt
The bold part in the SE CLI for Gem5 shows my input to it. How exactly does Gem5 process this and obtain the instructions to be simulated? Which files should I be looking into for this? As far as I know, no tutorials mention this.
out is a regular ELF userland executable, e.g. a C hello world, just like the ones you would run on your Linux host.
Usage of dynamically linked executable is described at: How to run a dynamically linked executable syscall emulation mode se.py in gem5? so generally statically linking is easier.
gem5 parses the ELF format, places memory into the right locations, puts the PC in the right location, and kicks off simulation, just like the exec syscall of the Linux kernel would.
Several runnable examples are available here.
After How to solve "FATAL: kernel too old" when running gem5 in syscall emulation SE mode? I managed to run a statically linked hello world under certain conditions.
But if I try to run an ARM dynamically linked one against the stdlib with:
./out/common/gem5/build/ARM/gem5.opt ./gem5/gem5/configs/example/se.py -c ./a.out
it fails with:
fatal: Unable to open dynamic executable's interpreter.
How to make it find the interpreter? Hopefully without copying my cross' toolchain's interpreter on my host's root.
For x86_64 it works if I use my native compiler, and as expected strace says that it is using the native interpreter, but it does not work if I use a cross compiler.
The current FAQ says it is not possible to use dynamic executables: http://gem5.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions but I don't trust it, and then these presentations mention it:
http://www.gem5.org/wiki/images/0/0c/2015_ws_08_dynamic-linker.pdf
http://research.cs.wisc.edu/multifacet/papers/learning_gem5_tutorial.pdf
but not how to actually use it.
QEMU user mode has the -L option for that.
Tested in gem5 49f96e7b77925837aa5bc84d4c3453ab5f07408e
https://www.mail-archive.com/gem5-users#gem5.org/msg15582.html
Support for dynamic linking has been added in November 2019
At: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/23066
It was working for sure at that point, but then it broke at some point and needs fixing.....
arm 32-bit https://gem5.atlassian.net/browse/GEM5-461
arm 64-bit https://gem5.atlassian.net/browse/GEM5-828
If you have a root filesystem to use, for example one generated by Buildroot you can do:
./build/ARM/gem5.opt configs/example/se.py \
--redirects /lib=/path/to/build/target/lib \
--redirects /lib64=/path/to/build/target/lib64 \
--redirects /usr/lib=/path/to/build/target/usr/lib \
--redirects /usr/lib64=/path/to/build/target/usr/lib64 \
--interp-dir /path/to/build/target \
--cmd /path/to/build/target/bin/hello
Or if you are using an Ubuntu cross compiler toolchain for example in Ubuntu 18.04:
sudo apt install gcc-aarch64-linux-gnu
aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc -o hello.out hello.c
./build/ARM/gem5.opt configs/example/se.py \
--interp-dir /usr/aarch64-linux-gnu \
--redirects /lib=/usr/aarch64-linux-gnu/lib \
--cmd hello.out
You have to add any paths that might contain dynamic libraries as a separate --redirect as well. Those are enough for C executables.
--interp-dir sets the root directory where the dynamic loader will be searched for, based on ELF metadata which says the path of the loader. For example, buildroot ELF files set that path to /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1, and the loader is a file present at /path/to/build/target/lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1. As mentioned by Brandon, this path can be found with:
readelf -a $bin_name | grep interp
The main difficulty with syscall emulation dynamic linking, is that we want somehow:
linker file accesses to go to a magic directory to find libraries there
other file accesses from the main application to go to normal paths, e.g. to read an input file in the current working directory
and it is hard to detect if we are in the loader or not, especially because this can happen via dlopen in the middle of a program.
The --redirects option is a simple solution for that.
For example /lib=/path/to/build/target/lib makes it so that if the guest would access the C standard library /lib/libc.so.6, then gem5 sees that this is inside /lib and redirects the path to /path/to/build/target/lib/libc.so.6 instead.
The slight downside is that it becomes impossible to actually access files in the /lib directory of the host, but this is not common, so it works in most cases.
If you miss any --redirect, the dynamic linker will likely complain that the library was not found with a message of type:
hello.out: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.6: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
If that happens, you have to find the libstdc++.so.6 library in the target filesystem / toolchain and add the missing --redirect.
It later broke at https://gem5.atlassian.net/browse/GEM5-430 but was fixed again.
Downsides of dynamic linking
Once I got dynamic linking to work, I noticed that it actually has the following downsides, which might or not be considerable depending on the application:
the dynamic linker has to run some instructions, and if you have a very minimal userland test executable, and are running on a low CPU like O3, then this startup can dominate runtime, so watch out for that
ExecAll does not show symbol names for stdlib functions, you just get offsets from some random nearest symbol e.g. #__end__+274873692728. Maybe something along these lines would work: Debugging shared libraries with gdbserver but not sure
dynamically jumping to a stdlib function for the first time requires going through the dynamic linking machinery, which can create problems if you are trying to control a microbench.
I actually already hit this once: the dynamic version of a program was doing something extra that and that compounded with a gem5 bug broke my experiment, and cost me a few hours of debugging.
Interpreters like Python and Java
Python and Java are just executables, and the script to execute an argument to the executable.
So in theory, you can run them in syscall emulation mode e.g. with:
build/ARM/gem5.opt configs/example/se.py --cmd /usr/bin/python --options='hello.py arg1 arg2'
In practice however hugely complex executable like interpreters are likely to have syscalls that not yet implemented given the current state of gem5 as of November 2019, see also: When to use full system FS vs syscall emulation SE with userland programs in gem5?
Generally it is not hard to implement / ignore uneeded calls though, so give it a shot. Related threads:
Java: Running Java programs in gem5(or any language which is not C)
Python: 3.6.8 aarch64 fails with "fatal: syscall unused#278 (#278) unimplemented.", test setup
Old answer
I have been told that as of 49f96e7b77925837aa5bc84d4c3453ab5f07408e (May 2018) there is no convenient / well tested way for running dynamically linked cross arch executables in syscall emulation: https://www.mail-archive.com/gem5-users#gem5.org/msg15585.html
I suspect however that it wouldn't be very hard to patch gem5 to support it. QEMU user mode already supports that, you just have to point to the root filesystem with -L.
The cross-compiled binary should have an .interp entry if it's a dynamic executable.
Verify it with readelf:
readelf -a $bin_name | grep interp
The simulator is setup to find this section in main executable when it loads the executable into the simulated address space. If this sections exists, a c-string is set to point to that text (normally something like /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2). The simulator then calls glibc's open function with that c-string as the parameter. Effectively, this opens the dynamic linker-loader for the simulator as a normal file. The simulator then maps the file into the simulated address space in phases with mmap and mmap_fixed.
For cross compilation, this code must fail. The error message follows it directly if the simulator cannot open the file. To make this work, you need to debug the opening process and possibly the subsequent pasting of the loader into the address space. There is mechanism to set the program's entry point into the loader rather than directly into the code section of the main binary. (It's done through the auxiliary vector on the stack.) You may need to play around with that as well.
The interesting code is (as of 05/29/19) in src/base/loader/elf_object.cc.
I encountered this problem after I just cross compiled the code. You can try to add "--static" after the command.
Many resources state that Firmware image is an ELF file/format. I've checked that by executing file command using several firmware images (.bin), the outcome of this command doesn't mention anything related to ELF. Unlike when I executed the same command over ELF files, where I was receiving something like ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Renesas SH, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, not stripped.
The reason I'm asking about that, I want to test an approach for detecting malicious ELF files, I already have the ELF malicious files, but I don't have benign ELF files, therefore was thinking if I can use Firmware images as benign ELF files.
Most Firmware will be in a binary format, referred to as a bin file.
So these bin files would not be useful for your test.
Here is an answer discussing the difference between the two formats.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/2427229/7275012
I'm relitavely new to embedded development and I have a question, or more of a feedback, on building and linking the µIP library on an embedded device. For what it's worth, the following is using a FOX G20 V board with an ATMEL AT91SAM9G20 processor with no OS.
I have done some research, and the way I see myself building and linking the library on the board is one of the following two options.
Option 1: The first option would be to compile the whole library (the .c files) in order to have a built static library in the form of a .a file. Then, I can link the created static library with my application code, before loading it on the device. Of course, the device driver will have to be programmed in order to allow the library to work on the platform (help was found here). This first option is using a Linux machine. For this first option as well, in order to load the static library linked with my application code, do I do so with an "scp"?
Option 2: The second option would be to compile and link the library to my application code directly without going through an intermediate static library. However, since my platorm does not contain an OS, I would need to install an appropraite GCC compiler in order to compile and link (if anyone has any leads for such an installation, that would be very helpful as well). However I'm quite unfamilier with the second option, but I've been told that it is easier to implement so if anyone as an idea on how to implement it, it would be very helpful.
I would appreciate some feedback along with the answers as to whether these options seem correct to you, and to be sure that I have not mentioned something that is false.
There is no real difference between these options. In any case, the host toolchain is responsible for creating a binary file that contains a fully linked executable with no external dependencies, so you need a cross compiler either way, and it is indeed easiest to just compile uIP along with the rest of the application.
The toolchain will typically have a cross compiler (if you use gcc, it should be named arm-eabi-gcc or arm-none-eabi-gcc), cross linker (arm-eabi-ld), cross archiver (arm-eabi-ar) etc. You would use these instead of the native tools. For Debian, you can find a cross compiler for ARM targets without an OS in testing/unstable.
Whether you build a static library
arm-eabi-gcc -c uip.c
arm-eabi-ar cru uip.a uip.o
arm-eabi-ranlib uip.a
arm-eabi-gcc -o executable application.c uip.a
or directly link
arm-eabi-gcc -c application.c
arm-eabi-gcc -c uip.c
arm-eabi-gcc -o executable application.o uip.o
or directly compile and link
arm-eabi-gcc -o executable application.c uip.c
makes no real difference.
If you use an integrated development environment, it is usually easiest to just add uip.c as a source file.
I'm cross-compiling for VxWorks using cmake. When I run cmake the first time I have to provide informations about compiler, target OS etc..
In the cross-compile dialogue there are three target system settings I set:
Operating System
Version
Processor
(followed by compiler etc.)
While I can retrieve the first one using CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME, i can't get the version and the processor.
Both return an empty string.
Here's an example:
MESSAGE("CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR: ${CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR}")
MESSAGE("CMAKE_SYSTEM_VERSION: ${CMAKE_SYSTEM_VERSION}")
Output:
CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR:
CMAKE_SYSTEM_VERSION:
My Cmake Version is 2.8.10.2 and target OS is VxWorks (if this matters - compiler are WindRiver GNU).
How can I get the version and processor I've set in the beginning? Or is this impossible if I cross-compile to an OS that's unknown to cmake?
(Btw. Compiling works fine)
It seems this is not possible so far. I'm getting empty strings all the time.
However, there's a working solution, and i guess it's the better way:
Before:
I specified cross-compile settings (Compiler and target system, see question), then it runs over VxWorks specific parts in the CMake list (checked with if( VxWorks ) to ensure it's not executed when other systems are used).
Now (Solution):
I wrote a toolchain file and platform files for VxWorks and required processors.
Cons:
I have to write some extra files:
Toolchain file
Platform file for VxWorks
Further Platform files for each Processor (and processor type, Gnu and Diab)
Pros:
CMake list is much cleaner now
Separate Project and Target settings
Separate System and processor settings - easy to add new Processors in a very clear way but keep System settings
I write some settings in the toolchain file and CMake loads related system / processor settings
...