This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: vdso handling
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: "Metzger, Markus T" <markus dot t dot metzger at intel dot com>
- Cc: "gdb at sourceware dot org" <gdb at sourceware dot org>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:47:02 +1030
- Subject: Re: vdso handling
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <A78C989F6D9628469189715575E55B230AA884EB at IRSMSX104 dot ger dot corp dot intel dot com>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:04:33PM +0000, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
> I noticed that the BFD created for the VDSO (system-provided in-memory
> DSO) does not contain any BFD sections. Is this intentional? Or has
> there just been no need for them?
> The vdso is processed in symbol_file_add_from_memory at
> gdb/symfile-mem.c:84. It calls bfd_from_remote_memory to create a BFD
> for the vdso and then processes it.
The underlying cause is that you're trying to debug an ELF binary that
only contains the execution view. The linking view (of which the
sections are a part) is not loaded, so bfd_from_remote_memory does not
have this information. See elfcode.h bfd_from_remote_memory.
You can see similar breakage of gdb and binutils if you zap e_shoff,
e_shnum, and e_shstrndx of your favourite hello world program.
I suppose one way to provide something that gdb and other tools expect
would be to treat the vdso like a core file, and create fake sections
corresponding to the program headers. I'm not really keen on the idea
though, since I know that will open up a can of worms.
Can't you point gdb at a file image for the vdso?
Australia Development Lab, IBM