From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id vAnIAF9BFWZkGykAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2024 09:23:43 -0400 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=gLx3awrH; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id E632C1E0C0; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:23:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB0471E030 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:23:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14AF5385828B for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 13:23:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail-pf1-x42d.google.com (mail-pf1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB33A385840B for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 13:23:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org AB33A385840B Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org AB33A385840B Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712668998; cv=none; b=c+nMWSsmvv0fFKeSZEhH3Jp28JxvvtC9cLWeC4c5rFtRk7kSov52RaghJOzZtlmBK+WnbtwpgIKj/WZ+3jitrv+s8mOsB0TtMNqeSyBci9p+1f1sCLF6O309fnphRY0oGT+jk8va/OXsD9yDMJrOQbGvueSXM/K4VIke8070f5E= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712668998; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EbQjibduak5cj3j1EIo9S+BX9FwBc35fRdjFCBm4/bk=; h=DKIM-Signature:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version; b=PBajKa3525thdYnaHcAVMqhcTyruDWqUU+s6yGqicYZh3t00DTqC3bwe9LnpK/a2lPwM0gycZ1auQl+haeEPup/qPZLxUSZ9YOPoqrWWj0w4OTO/LUrJzxwM44lDiFwH83UFdJgOTc+TH8vJ9PT7ydVe4mr3xEqGd+AWsFXDbCM= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: by mail-pf1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6ecf406551aso3903821b3a.2 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2024 06:23:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1712668994; x=1713273794; darn=sourceware.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=qXDJAxFfWEu139Ugy37Ces4u5Z/6MfUhUy3d9dVlhXs=; b=gLx3awrHqk8nUiXfJuFvMwDJCXn1kRhjLY3LnqNDciFBcE9K0/vlPZc2eYvoCLNRn4 mF2+mWckJfx4zIRoHPaIZH77QYgt1Wi0ecQDRdC/jxDFPmtbsKCX0/4HnDtgNJa31oxR P7E+7g+ChUONa73bZHzgMz+5Mj0038ejG9RhHZGVrbYbVOI2vkXAU9uhNXlP4gF/OSfI Jt0T3i4vNcYRsmzayOC+jQBjj9r3SKeifFUu6CIYNA9gIPu8BOM0+hOartnx/FhCccT/ 6rurM/fwkRHk5Dk7QM8hOxFp7ehTRhlhjv/1E6VfmJ+E7VVu0bTeAIhGlyNB2LqgopG+ Zsng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712668994; x=1713273794; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=qXDJAxFfWEu139Ugy37Ces4u5Z/6MfUhUy3d9dVlhXs=; b=M3kCd1EK3qi5rvzaGsxhKtw87ZBLiJJNzZhNYuTRXMCoxmp7t6aAYIEcty0k9UqoHC yafIdnH7ubIloKpWqqPXDtpv4tpyAqu6UoLA+XknCGXV9wNbKqbQFuJR129Rg6tCD6OW eoOw7b65dptp6IBiP4vMKh4nMvIVQi/TvnOhZ+Gelt3Eg68TJ4Lij4Kw22tz2W/CFsP5 xubIGYVfcm0lV2iEnldW5WmCj1yVAzbv9Ou6KQ+eRMkHGApwW7yTdt8UCPLk3F0kMjo4 j0niEPBg6zpZsXAOaACzg4qK7CDW0XG4evqOLvxEzWc8x2/kBAW+of60ibcFytNKlN87 XkrA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx9UMD40DBJ4rdOfzDLDZ8VsFo0tap+zkvaUjWNk3QEz+jK4paD uX0CERNlNqC5vMyWgGcjV0eDlpvOHxXpmBWEcmD2318EKx7uyJ5bhTgnbuh4qx8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHqLGjv5AwhIiGvPr0pzO+WwOttFXTLakSbSOIYIcDXjasLd9HY4IcJNMSMrapnI90NnrM5VA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:3a84:b0:1a7:5402:8a92 with SMTP id zv4-20020a056a213a8400b001a754028a92mr9924086pzb.31.1712668994617; Tue, 09 Apr 2024 06:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2804:7f0:b403:42c7:7a6a:84e4:83a0:56d7? ([2804:7f0:b403:42c7:7a6a:84e4:83a0:56d7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t32-20020a056a0013a000b006ed53b2652fsm2916102pfg.101.2024.04.09.06.23.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Apr 2024 06:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] gdb: Document qMemTagCheckAddr packet To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luis.machado@arm.com, thiago.bauermann@linaro.org References: <20240404064819.2848899-1-gustavo.romero@linaro.org> <20240404064819.2848899-8-gustavo.romero@linaro.org> <87msq363yk.fsf@tromey.com> From: Gustavo Romero Message-ID: <44bc1d7f-65da-3db2-d3dd-a6b27beb2e9c@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 10:23:11 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87msq363yk.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Hi Tom, On 4/8/24 4:37 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Gustavo" == Gustavo Romero writes: > > Gustavo> +@item @w{} > Gustavo> +An empty reply indicates that @samp{qMemTagCheckAddr} is not supported by the > Gustavo> +stub. This situation should not occur because @value{GDBN} will only send this > Gustavo> +packet if the stub has advertised support for memory tagging check via the > Gustavo> +@samp{memory-tagging-check-addr} feature in @samp{qSupported}. > > Is querying really needed in this case? > Like, if there is some user feature that requires knowing whether this > work before ever trying it, then I guess that would be a good > justification. In other cases, it seems to me that simply trying to use > a packet is better than a qSupported response; or at least I don't know > why it wouldn't be. That's right, I think we are in sync here. Luis communicated to me last week (private conversation) about this possibility, hence for v4 we just try to send the qMemTagCheckAddr packet, and if it fails (empty reply) there is a fallback to the current code path, which reads the smaps. So I'm dropping the memory-tagging-check-addr feature. Thanks for review! Cheers, Gustavo