vdso handling

Pedro Alves palves@redhat.com
Fri Jun 6 12:45:00 GMT 2014


On 06/01/2014 09:31 PM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:

>> Some glibc versions even include the vdso in the DSO list (*), and GDB
>> should be able to tell that that DSO is the vDSO (by matching addresses), and
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Hmm, why don't we already do that? It's bound to be easier than meeting
> the conditions to get glibc to stop falsely cliaming that the vDSO comes
> from a file <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13097#c5>.

Dunno.  Because nobody has done it?

I suppose that's what Ulrich meant in
<https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13097#c1>.

>> (*) note how linux-vdso.so.1 is listed by ldd, even if "info shared" in gdb
>> doesn't show it, on some systems.
> 
> What versions don't list the vdso under some name or other?  (Mine calls
> it linux-gate.so.1 for some reason.)

I don't know versions numbers, but all before the glibc commit
mentioned in <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13097#c1>
I guess, and also, see the rest of the discussion there, indicating
that Fedora carries a reversion of the offending patch.

-- 
Pedro Alves



More information about the Gdb mailing list