Version and Platform (required):
- Binary Ninja Version: 5.3.9434 Ultimate, f7cf98e7
- OS: macos
- OS Version: 26.3.1
- CPU Architecture: arm64
Bug Description:
When opening a macOS shared cache I've noticed that some Objective-C methods do not have parameter types applied.
For instance, -[MLMediaGroup initWithMediaLibrary:attributes:parent:] from MediaLibrary.framework shows up as:
id -[MLMediaGroup initWithMediaLibrary:attributes:parent:](int64_t arg1, int64_t arg2, int64_t arg3, int64_t arg4, int64_t arg5)
rather than the expected
id -[MLMediaGroup initWithMediaLibrary:attributes:parent:](struct MLMediaGroup* self, SEL sel, id mediaLibrary, id attributes, id parent)
That breaks type propagation and prevents ivars from being resolved.
That said, methods in CoreHandwriting.framework, such as -[CHMultiScriptTextSynthesizer initWithStyleInventory:], do have their argument types applied correctly. I'm not sure exactly what the relevant difference is here.
Steps To Reproduce:
- Load a macOS shared cache from
/System/Volumes/Preboot/Cryptexes/OS/System/Library/dyld/dyld_shared_cache_arm64e
- Load MediaLibrary.framework, then navigate to
-[MLMediaGroup initWithMediaLibrary:attributes:parent:].
Additional Information:
This appears to be a regression in 5.3, due to 1bb0012.
Version and Platform (required):
Bug Description:
When opening a macOS shared cache I've noticed that some Objective-C methods do not have parameter types applied.
For instance,
-[MLMediaGroup initWithMediaLibrary:attributes:parent:]fromMediaLibrary.frameworkshows up as:rather than the expected
That breaks type propagation and prevents ivars from being resolved.
That said, methods in
CoreHandwriting.framework, such as-[CHMultiScriptTextSynthesizer initWithStyleInventory:], do have their argument types applied correctly. I'm not sure exactly what the relevant difference is here.Steps To Reproduce:
/System/Volumes/Preboot/Cryptexes/OS/System/Library/dyld/dyld_shared_cache_arm64e-[MLMediaGroup initWithMediaLibrary:attributes:parent:].Additional Information:
This appears to be a regression in 5.3, due to 1bb0012.