From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Philipp Rudo <prudo@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Fix read after xfree in linux_nat_detach
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:42:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <02be13b3-1711-545a-921c-80c4fd2da2e0@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170323141724.1707affa@ThinkPad>
OK.
On 03/23/2017 01:17 PM, Philipp Rudo wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:26:27 +0000
> Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/22/2017 05:16 PM, Philipp Rudo wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like we can get simply rid of it. I'll see that I get a test
>>> case running which forks to verify it, tomorrow.
>>
>> This forks handling is the support for the "checkpoint" &
>> friends commands, covered by gdb.base/checkpoint.exp.
>> Doesn't seem to exercise detach yet though, unfortunately.
>
> I double checked, the same bug also happens when checkpointing. The
> fix now is simply to remove delete_lwp at the end of linux_nat_detach.
>
> Although testing detach would be good, I'm not sure if the testsuite
> would have found this bug.
>
> ---
>
> From ee3dced0b22cc1edb10a82aeb79ae35d78d665bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Philipp Rudo <prudo@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:53:50 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH v2] Fix read after xfree in linux_nat_detach
>
> At the end of linux_nat_detach the main_lwp is deleted (delete_lwp).
> This is problematic as during detach (detach_one_lwp and
> linux_fork_detach) main_lwp already gets freed. Thus calling
> delete_lwp causes a read after free. Fix it by removing the
> unnecessary delete_lwp.
>
> gdb/ChangeLog:
> * linux-nat.c (linux_nat_detach): delete_lwp causes read after
> free. Remove it.
> ---
> gdb/linux-nat.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/linux-nat.c b/gdb/linux-nat.c
> index dff0da5..efe7daf 100644
> --- a/gdb/linux-nat.c
> +++ b/gdb/linux-nat.c
> @@ -1549,7 +1549,6 @@ linux_nat_detach (struct target_ops *ops, const
> char *args, int from_tty)
> inf_ptrace_detach_success (ops);
> }
> - delete_lwp (main_lwp->ptid);
> }
>
> /* Resume execution of the inferior process. If STEP is nonzero,
>
--
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-23 13:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-22 13:11 [PATCH] Fix memory leak in python.c:do_start_initialization Philipp Rudo
2017-03-22 13:11 ` [PATCH] Fix read after xfree in linux_nat_detach Philipp Rudo
2017-03-22 15:07 ` Pedro Alves
2017-03-22 17:17 ` Philipp Rudo
2017-03-22 17:26 ` Pedro Alves
2017-03-23 13:17 ` [PATCH v2] " Philipp Rudo
2017-03-23 13:42 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
[not found] ` <f712cd1a-cf44-44da-9bf4-3ccd407a76a0@redhat.com>
2017-04-12 8:14 ` Philipp Rudo
2017-03-22 15:19 ` [PATCH] Fix memory leak in python.c:do_start_initialization Pedro Alves
2017-03-22 17:52 ` Philipp Rudo
2017-03-22 18:45 ` Pedro Alves
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=02be13b3-1711-545a-921c-80c4fd2da2e0@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=prudo@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox