From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11628 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2013 21:07:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 11616 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Feb 2013 21:07:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:07:15 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1LL7Esk009734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:07:14 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-18.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.18]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1LL7Awp029075 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:07:13 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:07:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Aleksandar Ristovski Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [patch] validate binary before use Message-ID: <20130221210709.GA31673@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <50DCBBD1.7000707@qnx.com> <5107F591.304@qnx.com> <20130130191646.GA1034@host2.jankratochvil.net> <510A7E4B.4040608@qnx.com> <20130201030610.GA12800@host2.jankratochvil.net> <510BD1BF.2050209@qnx.com> <20130201200418.GA18674@host2.jankratochvil.net> <510C343D.8020500@qnx.com> <20130202122514.GA30057@host2.jankratochvil.net> <51268AF5.1030402@qnx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51268AF5.1030402@qnx.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2013-02/txt/msg00574.txt.bz2 On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:00:37 +0100, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote: > This, however, has little to do with the semantics of l_addr which, > as I already stated, should be load base and not displacement. When we talk about GDB internal value lm_info->l_addr then sure I agree it could be the absolute address. This would be a separate "code cleanup" (=with no GDB functionality impact) patch. If it simplifies the GDB code then sure it is a win. If not then it is worth a discussion, matching glibc's l_addr meaning also makes sense (at least ot me). (I will check more of the mail later.) Thanks, Jan