From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9356 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2008 01:42:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 9336 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Nov 2008 01:42:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:41:59 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3826610C2E; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:41:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD69510C2C; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:41:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L3L1w-00051v-2I; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:41:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:47:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Handle broken CFI for signal trampolines in libc on amd64-linux Message-ID: <20081121014156.GA19240@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20081120235151.GA12123@caradoc.them.org> <200811210133.mAL1XTSF010875@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200811210133.mAL1XTSF010875@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00576.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:33:29AM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Anyway, while it is certainly good that this is fixed, I'm still > wondering why we should rely on that when we have a hard-coded > sigtramp detector that should be working just fine under any > circumstances. I think that one reason was the extra work of the signal handler sniffer. The amd64 one doesn't do much for named functions, though, and functions with CFI are likely to be named. I suggest asking Mark Kettenis's opinion. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery