I can't understand this error message in ARM - debugging

My assembly code is
00000000 <_start>:
0: e28f6001 add r6, pc, #1
4: e12fff16 bx r6
8: 1b24 subs r4, r4, r4
a: 1c20 adds r0, r4, #0
c: 4a01 ldr r2, [pc, #4] ; (14 <_start+0x14>)
e: 4790 blx r2
10: 4a01 ldr r2, [pc, #4] ; (18 <_start+0x18>)
12: 4790 blx r2
14: 80047dbc .word 0x8003f924 ; prepare_kernel_cred
18: 80047a0c .word 0x8003f56c ; commit_creds
When I execute this assembly code, segment fault is occured and error message is
1010201d : 4a
1010201e : 90
1010201f : 47
10102020 : 1
10102021 : 4a
10102022 : 90
10102023 : 47
10102024 : 24
10102025 : f9
10102026 : 3
10102027 : 80
10102028 : 6c
10102029 : f5
1010202a : 3
1010202b : 80
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000000
pgd = 82d44000
[00000000] *pgd=63b28831, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
Internal error: Oops: 17 [#16] SMP ARM
Modules linked in: m(PO)
CPU: 0 PID: 660 Comm: test Tainted: P D W O 3.11.4 #13
task: 86834b40 ti: 8686c000 task.ti: 8686c000
PC is at 0x10102024
LR is at commit_creds+0x78/0x210
pc : [<10102024>] lr : [<8003f5e4>] psr: 20000033
sp : 8686dfa8 ip : 00000000 fp : 00000000
r10: 00000000 r9 : 8686c000 r8 : 8000e348
r7 : 00000000 r6 : 10102019 r5 : 0000001c r4 : 00000000
r3 : 00000001 r2 : 00000000 r1 : 00000001 r0 : 00000000
Flags: nzCv IRQs on FIQs on Mode SVC_32 ISA Thumb Segment user
Control: 10c53c7d Table: 62d4406a DAC: 00000015
Process test (pid: 660, stack limit = 0x8686c238)
Stack: (0x8686dfa8 to 0x8686e000)
dfa0: 00000000 0000001c 00000001 00000000 0000001c ffffffff
dfc0: 00000000 0000001c 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 76fb0000 00000000
dfe0: 7ec0dd00 7ec0dcf0 00008643 76f3b8f0 20000010 00000001 00000000 00000000
[<8003f5e4>] (commit_creds+0x78/0x210) from [<0000001c>] (0x1c)
Code: 4a01 4790 4a01 4790 (f924) 8003
---[ end trace 1b1bf4ebadf07b63 ]---
Segmentation fault
I think PC is 0x10102024 means that 14: 8003f924 .word 0x80047dbc because machine code at 0x1010204 is \x24\xf9\x03\80.
However I don't understand Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000000 means.
PC is 0x10102024 but kernel NULL pointer dereference is happened WHY?
00000000 <_start>:
0: e28f6001 add r6, pc, #1
4: e12fff16 bx r6
8: 1b24 subs r4, r4, r4
a: 1c20 adds r0, r4, #0
c: 4a0a ldr r2, [pc, #40] ; (38 <shellcode+0x22>)
e: 4790 blx r2
10: 4a0a ldr r2, [pc, #40] ; (3c <shellcode+0x26>)
12: 4790 blx r2
14: e7ff b.n 16 <shellcode>
00000016 <shellcode>:
16: 0000 movs r0, r0
18: e28f6001 add r6, pc, #1
1c: e12fff16 bx r6
20: 4678 mov r0, pc
22: 300a adds r0, #10
24: 9001 str r0, [sp, #4]
26: a901 add r1, sp, #4
28: 1a92 subs r2, r2, r2
2a: 270b movs r7, #11
2c: df01 svc 1
2e: 2f2f .short 0x2f2f
30: 2f6e6962 .word 0x2f6e6962
34: 00006873 .word 0x00006873
38: 80047dbc .word 0x80047dbc
3c: 80047a0c .word 0x80047a0c

In situations where you manage to get outside normal program flow and start executing random junk out of memory, it's always useful to have an idea of what the processor thinks is going on - if that last blx returns, you end up executing the data. What does that look like? Well, 'disassembling' arbitrary raw binaries is fun:
$ echo '24 f9 03 80' | xxd -r -p - hexfile
$ arm-linux-gnueabihf-objdump -bbinary -marm -D -Mforce-thumb hexfile
hexfile: file format binary
Disassembly of section .data:
00000000 <.data>:
0: f924 8003 vld4.8 {d8-d11}, [r4], r3
Well, how about that. By sheer coincidence, executing that address as a Thumb instruction results in a load using a base register which happens to be null at the time, hence the page fault.

Related

Why GCC (ARM Cortex-M0) generates UXTB instruction when it should know that data is already uint8

I'm using a Cortex-M0 MCU from NXP (LPC845) and I'm trying to figure out what GCC is trying to do :)
Basically, the C code (pseudo) is as follows:
volatile uint8_t readb1 = 0x1a; // dummy
readb1 = GpioPadB(GPIO_PIN);
and the macro I wrote is
(*((volatile uint8_t*)(SOME_GPIO_ADDRESS)))
Now the code is working, but it produced some extra UXTB instruction I don't understand
00000378: ldrb r3, [r3, #0]
0000037a: ldr r2, [pc, #200] ; (0x444 <AppInit+272>)
0000037c: uxtb r3, r3
0000037e: strb r3, [r2, #0]
105 asm("nop");
My explanation is as follows:
load BYTE from address specified in R3, put result in R3 <-- this is load from GPIO register as BYTE
load in R2 address of readb1 variable
UXTB extends the uint8 value ??? But rotate argument is 0, so basically does nothing for uint8 !
store as BYTE to R2's address (my variable) data from R3
Why does that?
First of all, it should know that data in R3 has just a BYTE meaning (it already generates LDRB correctly). Second, the STRB will already trim 7..0 LSB so why using UXTB ?
Thanks for clarifications,
EDITED:
Compiler version:
gcc version 9.2.1 20191025 (release) [ARM/arm-9-branch revision 277599] (GNU Tools for Arm Embedded Processors 9-2019-q4-major)
I use -O3
Looks like an extra instruction left in by the compiler and/or there is some nuance to the cortex-m or newer cores (would love to know what that nuance is).
#define GpioPadB(x) (*((volatile unsigned char *)(x)))
volatile unsigned char readb1;
void fun ( void )
{
readb1 = 0x1A;
readb1 = GpioPadB(0x1234000);
}
an apt gotten gcc
arm-none-eabi-gcc --version
arm-none-eabi-gcc (15:4.9.3+svn231177-1) 4.9.3 20150529 (prerelease)
Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
arm-none-eabi-gcc -O2 -c -mthumb so.c -o so.o
arm-none-eabi-objdump -d so.o
00000000 <fun>:
0: 231a movs r3, #26
2: 4a03 ldr r2, [pc, #12] ; (10 <fun+0x10>)
4: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
6: 4b03 ldr r3, [pc, #12] ; (14 <fun+0x14>)
8: 781b ldrb r3, [r3, #0]
a: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
c: 4770 bx lr
e: 46c0 nop ; (mov r8, r8)
10: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
14: 01234000 .word 0x01234000
as one would expect.
arm-none-eabi-gcc -O2 -c -mthumb -march=armv7-m so.c -o so.o
arm-none-eabi-objdump -d so.o
so.o: file format elf32-littlearm
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <fun>:
0: 4a03 ldr r2, [pc, #12] ; (10 <fun+0x10>)
2: 211a movs r1, #26
4: 4b03 ldr r3, [pc, #12] ; (14 <fun+0x14>)
6: 7011 strb r1, [r2, #0]
8: 781b ldrb r3, [r3, #0]
a: b2db uxtb r3, r3
c: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
e: 4770 bx lr
10: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
14: 01234000 .word 0x01234000
with the extra utxb instruction in there
Something a bit newer
arm-none-eabi-gcc --version
arm-none-eabi-gcc (GCC) 10.2.0
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
for armv6m and armv7m
00000000 <fun>:
0: 231a movs r3, #26
2: 4a03 ldr r2, [pc, #12] ; (10 <fun+0x10>)
4: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
6: 4b03 ldr r3, [pc, #12] ; (14 <fun+0x14>)
8: 781b ldrb r3, [r3, #0]
a: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
c: 4770 bx lr
e: 46c0 nop ; (mov r8, r8)
10: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
14: 01234000 .word 0x01234000
for armv4t
00000000 <fun>:
0: 231a movs r3, #26
2: 4a03 ldr r2, [pc, #12] ; (10 <fun+0x10>)
4: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
6: 4b03 ldr r3, [pc, #12] ; (14 <fun+0x14>)
8: 781b ldrb r3, [r3, #0]
a: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
c: 4770 bx lr
e: 46c0 nop ; (mov r8, r8)
10: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
14: 01234000 .word 0x01234000
and the utxb is gone.
I think it is just a missed optimization, peephole or otherwise.
As answered already though, when you use non-gpr-sized variables you can expect and/or tolerate the compiler converting up to the register size. Varies by compiler and target as to whether they do it on the way in or the way out (when a variable is read or just before it is written or used down the road).
For x86 where you can access various portions of the register separately (or use memory based operands) you will see they do not do this (in gcc) even for cases when it clearly needs a sign extension or padding. And sort it out down the road when the value is used.
You can search the gcc sources for utxb and perhaps see the issue or a comment.
EDIT
Note that clang takes a different path, it burns clocks generating the address but does not do the extension
00000000 <fun>:
0: f240 0000 movw r0, #0
4: f2c0 0000 movt r0, #0
8: 211a movs r1, #26
a: 7001 strb r1, [r0, #0]
c: f244 0100 movw r1, #16384 ; 0x4000
10: f2c0 1123 movt r1, #291 ; 0x123
14: 7809 ldrb r1, [r1, #0]
16: 7001 strb r1, [r0, #0]
18: 4770 bx lr
clang --version
clang version 11.1.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git 1fdec59bffc11ae37eb51a1b9869f0696bfd5312)
Target: armv7m-none-unknown-eabi
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /opt/llvm11armv7m/bin
I think it is simply an optimization problem with gcc/gnu.
The "volatile" modifier is to blame. It does not call type extensions when written, because it doesn't make sense. But when reading, it always calls the extension. Because now the data is stored in a register, and must be ready for any operations, over the entire range of the visibility limit.
Abandoning "volatile" removes any additional operations on the data, but it can also remove the very fact of using the variable.
https://godbolt.org/z/cGvc8r6se
First of all, it should know that data in R3 has just a BYTE meaning
Registers are only 32 bits. They do not have any other "meaning". The register must contain the same value as the loaded byte - thus UXTB. Any other operation later (for example adding something requires the whole register to contain the correct value.
Generally speaking, using shorter types than 32 bit usually adds some overhead as Cortex-Mx processors do not do operations on the "portions" of the registers.
To fix this problem, you need to file a bug at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/. But there are two difficult situations.
There are a lot of bugs related to "volatile", and all of them are not closed, and most of them are not even confirmed. As far as I understand, the developers are already tired of fighting windmills, and do not even react to it.
To successfully fix the problem - you need to find the extreme, the very one that wrote the root of evil. Authorship and all. You will not be allowed into someone else's branch, and only the most advanced are allowed into the master.
But even before this moment, you need to find the reason for this behavior, and here again there are problems.
The GCC code is huge, you can search endlessly.
My personal opinion: GCC treats ARM kernel registers as part of fast memory. This memory can be accessed via a physical address, which only adds to the problems. Well, if this is memory, and the dimension does not match, then, according to GCC, you need to add expansion commands.
Why does GCC use the correct commands when simply accessed? - well, he reads from memory to memory. Emphasis - "from memory". No matter what happens next, you need to read it right now.

No FPU support with gcc for ARM Cortex M?

I have the following function from a well known benchmark that I am compiling with gcc-arm-none-eabi-10-2020-q4-major:
#include <unistd.h>
double b[1000], c[1000];
void tuned_STREAM_Scale(double scalar)
{
ssize_t j;
for (j = 0; j < 1000; j++)
b[j] = scalar* c[j];
}
I am using the following compiler options:
arm-none-eabi-gcc -O3 -mcpu=cortex-m7 -mthumb -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=fpv5-sp-d16 -c test.c
However, if I check the compiled code, the compiler seems unable to use a basic FPU multiply instruction, and just uses the __aeabi_dmul function from libgcc (we can however see that a FPU vmov is used):
00000000 <tuned_STREAM_Scale>:
0: e92d 41f0 stmdb sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, lr}
4: 4c08 ldr r4, [pc, #32] ; (28 <tuned_STREAM_Scale+0x28>)
6: 4d09 ldr r5, [pc, #36] ; (2c <tuned_STREAM_Scale+0x2c>)
8: f504 58fa add.w r8, r4, #8000 ; 0x1f40
c: ec57 6b10 vmov r6, r7, d0
10: e8f4 0102 ldrd r0, r1, [r4], #8
14: 4632 mov r2, r6
16: 463b mov r3, r7
18: f7ff fffe bl 0 <__aeabi_dmul>
1c: 4544 cmp r4, r8
1e: e8e5 0102 strd r0, r1, [r5], #8
22: d1f5 bne.n 10 <tuned_STREAM_Scale+0x10>
24: e8bd 81f0 ldmia.w sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, pc}
If I compare with another compiler, the code is incomparably more efficient:
00000000 <tuned_STREAM_Scale>:
0: 4808 ldr r0, [pc, #32] ; (24 <tuned_STREAM_Scale+0x24>)
2: b580 push {r7, lr}
4: 4b06 ldr r3, [pc, #24] ; (20 <tuned_STREAM_Scale+0x20>)
6: 27c8 movs r7, #200 ; 0xc8
8: c806 ldmia r0!, {r1, r2}
a: ec42 1b11 vmov d1, r1, r2
e: ee20 1b01 vmul.f64 d1, d0, d1
12: 1e7f subs r7, r7, #1
14: ec52 1b11 vmov r1, r2, d1
18: c306 stmia r3!, {r1, r2}
1a: d1f5 bne.n 8 <tuned_STREAM_Scale+0x8>
1c: bd80 pop {r7, pc}
If I check inside gcc package the various libgcc object files depending on CPU or FPU options, I cannot find any FPU instructions in __aeabi_dmul or any other function.
I find very strange that gcc is not able to use a basic FPU multiplication, and I could not find in any documentation or README this limitation, so I am wondering if I am not doing anything wrong. I have checked older gcc versions and I still have this problem. Would it be due to gcc or to the compiled binaries from ARM?
The clue is in the compiler options you already posted:
-mfpu=fpv5-sp-d16 "sp" means single precision.
You told it not to generate hardware double instructions, which is correct for most Cortex-M7 processors because they can't execute them. If you have an M7 which can then you need to set the correct fpu argument.

Does arm-none-eabi-ld rewrite the bl instruction?

I'm trying to understand why some Cortex-M0 code behaves differently when it is linked versus unlinked. In both cases it is loaded to 0x20000000. It looks like despite my best efforts to generate position independent code by passing -fPIC to the compiler, the bl instruction appears to differ after the code has passed through the linker. Am I reading this correctly, is that just a part of the linker's job in ARM Thumb, and is there a better way to generate a position independent function call?
Linked:
20000000:
20000000: 0003 movs r3, r0
20000002: 4852 ldr r0, [pc, #328]
20000004: 4685 mov sp, r0
20000006: 0018 movs r0, r3
20000008: f000 f802 bl 20000010
2000000c: 46c0 nop ; (mov r8, r8)
2000000e: 46c0 nop ; (mov r8, r8)
Unlinked:
00000000:
0: 0003 movs r3, r0
2: 4852 ldr r0, [pc, #328]
4: 4685 mov sp, r0
6: 0018 movs r0, r3
8: f7ff fffe bl 10
c: 46c0 nop ; (mov r8, r8)
e: 46c0 nop ; (mov r8, r8)
start.s
.globl _start
_start:
.word 0x20001000
.word reset
.word hang
.word hang
.thumb
.thumb_func
reset:
bl notmain
.thumb_func
hang:
b .
notmain.c
unsigned int x;
unsigned int fun ( unsigned int );
void notmain ( void )
{
x=fun(x+5);
}
fun.c
unsigned int y;
unsigned int fun ( unsigned int z )
{
return(y+z+1);
}
memmap
MEMORY
{
ram : ORIGIN = 0x20000000, LENGTH = 0x1000
}
SECTIONS
{
.text : { *(.text*) } > ram
.bss : { *(.bss*) } > ram
}
build
arm-none-eabi-as start.s -o start.o
arm-none-eabi-gcc -fPIC -O2 -c -mthumb fun.c -o fun.o
arm-none-eabi-gcc -fPIC -O2 -c -mthumb notmain.c -o notmain.o
arm-none-eabi-ld -T memmap start.o notmain.o fun.o -o so.elf
produces
20000000 <_start>:
20000000: 20001000 andcs r1, r0, r0
20000004: 20000011 andcs r0, r0, r1, lsl r0
20000008: 20000015 andcs r0, r0, r5, lsl r0
2000000c: 20000015 andcs r0, r0, r5, lsl r0
20000010 <reset>:
20000010: f000 f802 bl 20000018 <notmain>
20000014 <hang>:
20000014: e7fe b.n 20000014 <hang>
...
20000018 <notmain>:
20000018: b510 push {r4, lr}
2000001a: 4b06 ldr r3, [pc, #24] ; (20000034 <notmain+0x1c>)
2000001c: 4a06 ldr r2, [pc, #24] ; (20000038 <notmain+0x20>)
2000001e: 447b add r3, pc
20000020: 589c ldr r4, [r3, r2]
20000022: 6823 ldr r3, [r4, #0]
20000024: 1d58 adds r0, r3, #5
20000026: f000 f809 bl 2000003c <fun>
2000002a: 6020 str r0, [r4, #0]
2000002c: bc10 pop {r4}
2000002e: bc01 pop {r0}
20000030: 4700 bx r0
20000032: 46c0 nop ; (mov r8, r8)
20000034: 00000032 andeq r0, r0, r2, lsr r0
20000038: 00000000 andeq r0, r0, r0
2000003c <fun>:
2000003c: 4b03 ldr r3, [pc, #12] ; (2000004c <fun+0x10>)
2000003e: 4a04 ldr r2, [pc, #16] ; (20000050 <fun+0x14>)
20000040: 447b add r3, pc
20000042: 589b ldr r3, [r3, r2]
20000044: 681b ldr r3, [r3, #0]
20000046: 3301 adds r3, #1
20000048: 1818 adds r0, r3, r0
2000004a: 4770 bx lr
2000004c: 00000010 andeq r0, r0, r0, lsl r0
20000050: 00000004 andeq r0, r0, r4
Disassembly of section .got:
20000054 <.got>:
20000054: 20000068 andcs r0, r0, r8, rrx
20000058: 2000006c andcs r0, r0, ip, rrx
Disassembly of section .got.plt:
2000005c <_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_>:
...
Disassembly of section .bss:
20000068 <x>:
20000068: 00000000 andeq r0, r0, r0
2000006c <y>:
2000006c: 00000000 andeq r0, r0, r0
when it wants to find the global variable x what it appears to have done is it takes the program counter and a linker supplied/modfied offset 0x32 and uses that to find the entry in the global offset table. then takes an offset from that to find X. same for Y. so it appears that when you relocate you will need to modify the global offset table at runtime or load time depending.
If I get rid of those global variables, other than the vector table which is hardcoded and not PIC (and wasnt compiled anyway), this is all position independent.
20000000 <_start>:
20000000: 20001000 andcs r1, r0, r0
20000004: 20000011 andcs r0, r0, r1, lsl r0
20000008: 20000015 andcs r0, r0, r5, lsl r0
2000000c: 20000015 andcs r0, r0, r5, lsl r0
20000010 <reset>:
20000010: f000 f802 bl 20000018 <notmain>
20000014 <hang>:
20000014: e7fe b.n 20000014 <hang>
...
20000018 <notmain>:
20000018: b508 push {r3, lr}
2000001a: 2005 movs r0, #5
2000001c: f000 f804 bl 20000028 <fun>
20000020: 3006 adds r0, #6
20000022: bc08 pop {r3}
20000024: bc02 pop {r1}
20000026: 4708 bx r1
20000028 <fun>:
20000028: 3001 adds r0, #1
2000002a: 4770 bx lr
back to this version
unsigned int y;
unsigned int fun ( unsigned int z )
{
return(y+z+1);
}
position independent
00000000 <fun>:
0: 4b03 ldr r3, [pc, #12] ; (10 <fun+0x10>)
2: 4a04 ldr r2, [pc, #16] ; (14 <fun+0x14>)
4: 447b add r3, pc
6: 589b ldr r3, [r3, r2]
8: 681b ldr r3, [r3, #0]
a: 3301 adds r3, #1
c: 1818 adds r0, r3, r0
e: 4770 bx lr
10: 00000008 andeq r0, r0, r8
14: 00000000 andeq r0, r0, r0
not position independent
00000000 <fun>:
0: 4b02 ldr r3, [pc, #8] ; (c <fun+0xc>)
2: 681b ldr r3, [r3, #0]
4: 3301 adds r3, #1
6: 1818 adds r0, r3, r0
8: 4770 bx lr
a: 46c0 nop ; (mov r8, r8)
c: 00000000 andeq r0, r0, r0
the code has to do a bit more work to access the external variable. position dependent, some work because it is external but not as much. the linker will fill in the required items to make it work...to link it...
the elf file contains information for the linker to know to do this.
Relocation section '.rel.text' at offset 0x1a4 contains 2 entries:
Offset Info Type Sym.Value Sym. Name
00000010 00000a19 R_ARM_BASE_PREL 00000000 _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_
00000014 00000b1a R_ARM_GOT_BREL 00000004 y
or
Relocation section '.rel.text' at offset 0x174 contains 1 entries:
Offset Info Type Sym.Value Sym. Name
0000000c 00000a02 R_ARM_ABS32 00000004 y
notmain had these PIC
Relocation section '.rel.text' at offset 0x1cc contains 3 entries:
Offset Info Type Sym.Value Sym. Name
0000000e 00000a0a R_ARM_THM_CALL 00000000 fun
0000001c 00000b19 R_ARM_BASE_PREL 00000000 _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_
00000020 00000c1a R_ARM_GOT_BREL 00000004 x
and without.
Relocation section '.rel.text' at offset 0x198 contains 2 entries:
Offset Info Type Sym.Value Sym. Name
00000008 00000a0a R_ARM_THM_CALL 00000000 fun
00000014 00000b02 R_ARM_ABS32 00000004 x
so in short the toolchain is doing its job, you dont need to re-do its job. And note this has nothing to do with arm or thumb. any time you use the object and linker model and allow for external items from an object the linker has to patch things up to glue the code together. thats just how it works.

Ineffective stack management and registers allocation

Consider the following code:
extern unsigned int foo(char c, char **p, unsigned int *n);
unsigned int test(const char *s, char **p, unsigned int *n)
{
unsigned int done = 0;
while (*s)
done += foo(*s++, p, n);
return done;
}
Output in Assembly:
00000000 <test>:
0: b5f8 push {r3, r4, r5, r6, r7, lr}
2: 0005 movs r5, r0
4: 000e movs r6, r1
6: 0017 movs r7, r2
8: 2400 movs r4, #0
a: 7828 ldrb r0, [r5, #0]
c: 2800 cmp r0, #0
e: d101 bne.n 14 <test+0x14>
10: 0020 movs r0, r4
12: bdf8 pop {r3, r4, r5, r6, r7, pc}
14: 003a movs r2, r7
16: 0031 movs r1, r6
18: f7ff fffe bl 0 <foo>
1c: 3501 adds r5, #1
1e: 1824 adds r4, r4, r0
20: e7f3 b.n a <test+0xa>
C code compiled using arm-none-eabi-gcc versions: 4.9.1, 5.4.0, 6.3.0 and 7.1.0 on
Linux host. Assembly output is the same for all GCC versions.
CFLAGS := -Os -march=armv6-m -mcpu=cortex-m0plus -mthumb
My understanding of the execution flow is following:
Push R3-R7 + LR onto the stack (totally unclear)
Move R0 to R5 (this is clear)
Move R1 to R6 and R2 to R7 (totally unclear)
Dereference R5 into R0 (This is clear)
Compare R0 with 0 (This is clear)
If R0 != 0 go to line 14: - Restore R1 from R6 and R2 from R7 and call foo(),
If R0 == 0 stay at line 10, restore R3 - R7 + PC from stack (totally unclear)
Increment R5 (clear)
accumulate result from foo() (clear)
Branch back to line a: (clear)
My own Assembly. Not extensively tested, but definitely I would not need more than R4 + LR to be pushed onto the stack:
EDIT: According to the provided answers, my example from below will fail due to R1 and R2 not being persistent through call to foo()
51 unsigned int __attribute__((naked)) test_asm(const char *s, char **p, unsigned int *n)
52 {
53 // r0 - *s (move ptr to r3 and dereference it to r0)
54 // r1 - **p
55 // r2 - *n
56 asm volatile(
57 " push {r4, lr} \n\t"
58 " movs r4, #0 \n\t"
59 " movs r3, r0 \n\t"
60 "1: \n\t"
61 " ldrb r0, [r3, #0] \n\t"
62 " cmp r0, #0 \n\t"
63 " beq 2f \n\t"
64 " bl foo \n\t"
65 " add r4, r4, r0 \n\t"
66 " add r3, #1 \n\t"
67 " b 1b \n\t"
68 "2: \n\t"
69 " movs r0, r4 \n\t"
70 " pop {r4, pc} \n\t"
71 );
72 }
Questions:
Why GCC stores so many registers for such trivial function?
Why it pushes R3 while it is written in ABI that R0-R3 are argument registers
and supposed to be a caller save and should be safely used inside called function
in this case test()
Why it copy R1 to R6 and R2 to R7 while the prototype of extern function almost
ideally matches the test() function. So R1 and R2 are already ready to be passed
to foo() routine. My understanding is that only R0 need to be dereferenced before
call to foo()
LR must be saved since test is not a leaf function. r5-r7 are used by the function to store values that are used across function calls and since they are not scratch they must be saved. r3 is pushed to align the stack.
Adding an extra register to push is a fast and compact way to align the stack.
r1 and r2 may be trashed by the call to foo and since the values initially stored in these registers are needed after the call they must be stored in a location that survive calls.

gcc for ARM - move code and stack

I am working on a project for an ARM Cortex-M3 (SiLabs) SOC. I need to move the interrupt vector [edit] and code away from the bottom of flash to make room for a "boot loader". The boot loader starts at address 0 to come up when the core comes out of reset. Its function is to validate the main image, loaded at a higher address and possibly replace that main image with a new one.
Therefore, the boot loader would have its vector table at 0, followed by its code. At a higher, fixed address, say 8KB, would be the main image, starting with its vector table.
I have found this page which describes the Vector Table Offset Register which the boot loader can use (with interrupts masked, obviously) to point the hardware to the new vector table.
My question is how to get the "main" image linked so that it will work when written to flash, starting not at zero. I'm not familiar with ARM assembly but I assume the code is not position independent.
I'm using SiLabs's Precision32 IDE which uses gcc for the toolchain. I've found how to add linker flags. My question is what gcc flag(s) will provide the change to the base of the vector table and code.
Thank you.
vectors.s
.cpu cortex-m3
.thumb
.word 0x20008000 /* stack top address */
.word _start /* Reset */
.word hang
.word hang
/* ... */
.thumb_func
hang: b .
.thumb_func
.globl _start
_start:
bl notmain
b hang
notmain.c
extern void fun ( unsigned int );
void notmain ( void )
{
fun(7);
}
fun.c
void fun ( unsigned int x )
{
}
Makefile
hello.elf : vectors.s fun.c notmain.c memmap
arm-none-eabi-as vectors.s -o vectors.o
arm-none-eabi-gcc -Wall -O2 -nostdlib -nostartfiles -ffreestanding -mthumb -mcpu=cortex-m3 -march=armv7-m -c notmain.c -o notmain.o
arm-none-eabi-gcc -Wall -O2 -nostdlib -nostartfiles -ffreestanding -mthumb -mcpu=cortex-m3 -march=armv7-m -c fun.c -o fun.o
arm-none-eabi-ld -o hello.elf -T memmap vectors.o notmain.o fun.o
arm-none-eabi-objdump -D hello.elf > hello.list
arm-none-eabi-objcopy hello.elf -O binary hello.bin
so if the linker script (memmap is the name I used) looks like this
MEMORY
{
rom : ORIGIN = 0x00000000, LENGTH = 0x40000
ram : ORIGIN = 0x20000000, LENGTH = 0x8000
}
SECTIONS
{
.text : { *(.text*) } > rom
.bss : { *(.bss*) } > ram
}
since all of the above is .text, no .bss nor .data, the linker takes the objects as listed on the ld command line and places them starting at that address...
mbly of section .text:
00000000 <hang-0x10>:
0: 20008000 andcs r8, r0, r0
4: 00000013 andeq r0, r0, r3, lsl r0
8: 00000011 andeq r0, r0, r1, lsl r0
c: 00000011 andeq r0, r0, r1, lsl r0
00000010 <hang>:
10: e7fe b.n 10 <hang>
00000012 <_start>:
12: f000 f801 bl 18 <notmain>
16: e7fb b.n 10 <hang>
00000018 <notmain>:
18: 2007 movs r0, #7
1a: f000 b801 b.w 20 <fun>
1e: bf00 nop
00000020 <fun>:
20: 4770 bx lr
22: bf00 nop
So for this to work you have to be careful to put your bootstrap code first on the command line. But you can also do things like this with a linker script.
the order appears to matter, listing the specific object files first then the generic .text later
MEMORY
{
romx : ORIGIN = 0x00000000, LENGTH = 0x1000
romy : ORIGIN = 0x00010000, LENGTH = 0x1000
ram : ORIGIN = 0x00030000, LENGTH = 0x1000
bob : ORIGIN = 0x00040000, LENGTH = 0x1000
ted : ORIGIN = 0x00050000, LENGTH = 0x1000
}
SECTIONS
{
abc : { vectors.o } > romx
def : { fun.o } > ted
.text : { *(.text*) } > romy
.bss : { *(.bss*) } > ram
}
and we get this
00000000 <hang-0x10>:
0: 20008000 andcs r8, r0, r0
4: 00000013 andeq r0, r0, r3, lsl r0
8: 00000011 andeq r0, r0, r1, lsl r0
c: 00000011 andeq r0, r0, r1, lsl r0
00000010 <hang>:
10: e7fe b.n 10 <hang>
00000012 <_start>:
12: f00f fff5 bl 10000 <notmain>
16: e7fb b.n 10 <hang>
Disassembly of section def:
00050000 <fun>:
50000: 4770 bx lr
50002: bf00 nop
Disassembly of section .text:
00010000 <notmain>:
10000: 2007 movs r0, #7
10002: f03f bffd b.w 50000 <fun>
10006: bf00 nop
the short answer is with gnu tools you use a linker script to manipulate where things end up, I assume you want these functions to be in the rom at some specified location. I dont quite understand exactly what you are doing. But if for example you are trying to put something simple like the branch to main() in the flash initially with main() being deeper in the flash, then somehow either through whatever code is deeper in the flash or through some other method, then later you erase and reprogram only the stuff near zero. you will still need a simple branch to main() the first time. you can force what I am calling vectors.o to be at address zero then .text can be deeper in the flash putting all of the reset of the code basically there, then leave that in flash and replace just the stuff at zero.
like this
MEMORY
{
romx : ORIGIN = 0x00000000, LENGTH = 0x1000
romy : ORIGIN = 0x00010000, LENGTH = 0x1000
ram : ORIGIN = 0x00030000, LENGTH = 0x1000
bob : ORIGIN = 0x00040000, LENGTH = 0x1000
ted : ORIGIN = 0x00050000, LENGTH = 0x1000
}
SECTIONS
{
abc : { vectors.o } > romx
.text : { *(.text*) } > romy
.bss : { *(.bss*) } > ram
}
giving
00000000 <hang-0x10>:
0: 20008000 andcs r8, r0, r0
4: 00000013 andeq r0, r0, r3, lsl r0
8: 00000011 andeq r0, r0, r1, lsl r0
c: 00000011 andeq r0, r0, r1, lsl r0
00000010 <hang>:
10: e7fe b.n 10 <hang>
00000012 <_start>:
12: f00f fff7 bl 10004 <notmain>
16: e7fb b.n 10 <hang>
Disassembly of section .text:
00010000 <fun>:
10000: 4770 bx lr
10002: bf00 nop
00010004 <notmain>:
10004: 2007 movs r0, #7
10006: f7ff bffb b.w 10000 <fun>
1000a: bf00 nop
then leave the 0x10000 stuff and replace 0x00000 stuff later.
Anyway, the short answer is linker script you need to craft a linker script to put things where you want them. gnu linker scripts can get extremely complicated, I lean toward the simple.
If you want to place everything at some other address, including your vector table, then perhaps something like this:
hop.s
.cpu cortex-m3
.thumb
.word 0x20008000 /* stack top address */
.word _start /* Reset */
.word hang
.word hang
/* ... */
.thumb_func
hang: b .
.thumb_func
ldr r0,=_start
bx r0
and this
MEMORY
{
romx : ORIGIN = 0x00000000, LENGTH = 0x1000
romy : ORIGIN = 0x00010000, LENGTH = 0x1000
ram : ORIGIN = 0x00030000, LENGTH = 0x1000
bob : ORIGIN = 0x00040000, LENGTH = 0x1000
ted : ORIGIN = 0x00050000, LENGTH = 0x1000
}
SECTIONS
{
abc : { hop.o } > romx
.text : { *(.text*) } > romy
.bss : { *(.bss*) } > ram
}
gives this
Disassembly of section abc:
00000000 <hang-0x10>:
0: 20008000 andcs r8, r0, r0
4: 00010013 andeq r0, r1, r3, lsl r0
8: 00000011 andeq r0, r0, r1, lsl r0
c: 00000011 andeq r0, r0, r1, lsl r0
00000010 <hang>:
10: e7fe b.n 10 <hang>
12: 4801 ldr r0, [pc, #4] ; (18 <hang+0x8>)
14: 4700 bx r0
16: 00130000
1a: 20410001
Disassembly of section .text:
00010000 <hang-0x10>:
10000: 20008000 andcs r8, r0, r0
10004: 00010013 andeq r0, r1, r3, lsl r0
10008: 00010011 andeq r0, r1, r1, lsl r0
1000c: 00010011 andeq r0, r1, r1, lsl r0
00010010 <hang>:
10010: e7fe b.n 10010 <hang>
00010012 <_start>:
10012: f000 f803 bl 1001c <notmain>
10016: e7fb b.n 10010 <hang>
00010018 <fun>:
10018: 4770 bx lr
1001a: bf00 nop
0001001c <notmain>:
1001c: 2007 movs r0, #7
1001e: f7ff bffb b.w 10018 <fun>
10022: bf00 nop
then you can change the vector table to 0x10000 for example.
if you are asking a different question like having the bootloader at 0x00000, then the bootloader modifies the flash to add an application say at 0x20000, then you want to run that application, there are simpler solutions that dont necessarily require you to modify the location of the vector table.

Resources