This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 0/7 V2] Trust readonly sections if target has memory protection
- From: Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink dot net>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 15:29:20 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7 V2] Trust readonly sections if target has memory protection
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1378432920-7731-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <1378641807-24256-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <201309091916 dot r89JGbpf009986 at glazunov dot sibelius dot xs4all dot nl> <522E9A8A dot 7040509 at codesourcery dot com> <52317B66 dot 3020602 at codesourcery dot com> <201309120949 dot r8C9nFsJ016506 at glazunov dot sibelius dot xs4all dot nl> <5232C9EC dot 2040707 at codesourcery dot com> <5249B9F9 dot 4030901 at redhat dot com> <5249BE1C dot 5050907 at redhat dot com>
On 9/30/13 11:08 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 09/30/2013 06:50 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>
>> But in cases like disassembly, we're being driven by debug
>> info or user input. As GDB knows upfront the whole range of memory it'll
>> be fetching, accessing a bigger chunk upfront, as long as it doesn't
>> step out of the range we read piecemeal anyway, should have no effect
>> on correctness.
>
> Hmm, wait, I'm having a a dÃjà vu experience. I recalled I have
> once reviewed a patch that does exactly this. But, I'm not finding
> it in the tree, or in the archives. Maybe it was a CS local patch
> that was never pushed?
>
There are a couple possibilities - for instance there we had a request
to check that the code underneath a breakpoint had not changed behind
our backs, or something like that. There was also the check of readonly
areas for memory_xfer_partial reading from a traceframe, but
that was your code, and it went into FSF in February 2011. :-)
Stan
stan@codesourcery.com