From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5543 invoked by alias); 6 May 2008 20:04:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 5526 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2008 20:04:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 May 2008 20:03:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17672A9898 for ; Tue, 6 May 2008 16:03:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id HRzuz3MG9DUt for ; Tue, 6 May 2008 16:03:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3612A98CF for ; Tue, 6 May 2008 16:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 85643E7ACD; Tue, 6 May 2008 13:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 10:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/ia64-linux] pb with shared libraries when attaching to process Message-ID: <20080506200338.GA3702@adacore.com> References: <20080425012331.GP1431@adacore.com> <20080425014746.GA10244@caradoc.them.org> <20080425023623.GB16580@adacore.com> <20080425032341.GA15147@caradoc.them.org> <20080425175952.GA841@adacore.com> <20080502144053.GJ29202@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080502144053.GJ29202@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00254.txt.bz2 > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:59:52AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > Eric Botcazou suggested that an address pointing to the .data section > > should never be some code because the .data section is not executable; > > So we could simply check the flags of our section, and if it doesn't > > have the CODE flag set, then assume it's a function descriptor. > > I can imagine this breaking but it would require use of mprotect. > Your patch looks good to me. Thanks. I just checked the patch in. -- Joel