From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 95241 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2016 13:37:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 95220 invoked by uid 89); 19 Oct 2016 13:37:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:37:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 052657F3F5; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:37:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9JDbj4c029673; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:37:46 -0400 Subject: Re: [rfc] PR 20569, segv in follow_exec To: Luis Machado , Sandra Loosemore , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <57F6D57D.8070603@codesourcery.com> <50f4c7d8-44e3-4351-0b54-9cbaef64717a@codesourcery.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <14a10c11-cda1-945c-560a-ee619fe59101@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <50f4c7d8-44e3-4351-0b54-9cbaef64717a@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00567.txt.bz2 On 10/18/2016 07:11 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > I went through the patch and, although this code as a whole is a bit on > the convoluted side, it looks reasonable to me. > > Segfaults are not supposed to happen, so allowing the session to > continue is a good thing IMO. > > Sounds like a good candidate for master and even stable branches. I didn't look at the patch in detail yet, but I think it'd be very good to have tests? Thanks, Pedro Alves