From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6184 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2011 08:16:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 6174 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2011 08:16:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 08:16:25 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B312BB225; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:55:50 -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 nSY-DjZ+Hphj; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A62F22BB140; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6AA90145615; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 16:18:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [Darwin 2/4] Do not crash (failed assertion) after PT_KILL ptrace error Message-ID: <20110703045547.GL2407@adacore.com> References: <1309547006-21412-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <1309547006-21412-3-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <201107021658.p62GwoWV017449@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201107021658.p62GwoWV017449@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 > I think I disagree here. PT_KILL should only fail if you pass it the > wrong process ID. So unless there is an OS bug of some sorts, this is > going to be a GDB internal error. Do you have actual evidence there > is a kernel bug here? It's true I don't. And I agree that the error could be an internal error, but it could just as well be an error in the kernel too. So I still think that an internal error/assert is too strong. What's more, we can still continue without any degradation in the debugger performance. We just failed one action which isn't critical to GDB's internal state. -- Joel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 787 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2011 07:30:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 729 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2011 07:30:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:55:51 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B312BB225; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:55:50 -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 nSY-DjZ+Hphj; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A62F22BB140; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6AA90145615; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 07:30:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [Darwin 2/4] Do not crash (failed assertion) after PT_KILL ptrace error Message-ID: <20110703045547.GL2407@adacore.com> References: <1309547006-21412-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <1309547006-21412-3-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <201107021658.p62GwoWV017449@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201107021658.p62GwoWV017449@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20110703073000.BQNs95PFmWr48ucslxrWoAYLq0XBx8z6FgIrGa_Hv8o@z> > I think I disagree here. PT_KILL should only fail if you pass it the > wrong process ID. So unless there is an OS bug of some sorts, this is > going to be a GDB internal error. Do you have actual evidence there > is a kernel bug here? It's true I don't. And I agree that the error could be an internal error, but it could just as well be an error in the kernel too. So I still think that an internal error/assert is too strong. What's more, we can still continue without any degradation in the debugger performance. We just failed one action which isn't critical to GDB's internal state. -- Joel