From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17901 invoked by alias); 24 May 2013 11:33:57 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 17874 invoked by uid 89); 24 May 2013 11:33:50 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4OBXma8022281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 07:33:48 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4OBXkDh014632; Fri, 24 May 2013 07:33:47 -0400 Message-ID: <519F501A.7050604@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org CC: Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] range stepping: gdbserver (x86 GNU/Linux) References: <20130514191026.13213.39574.stgit@brno.lan> <20130514191054.13213.58686.stgit@brno.lan> <87obcd48vj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <519E5575.7000701@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <519E5575.7000701@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00924.txt.bz2 On 05/23/2013 06:44 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> I don't know much about gdbserver, but reading this made me wonder if it >> needs to do any kind of error-checking on its input. > > Yeah, it doesn't tend to do that much validation. Perhaps we should. > >> Like - what if the wrong format is sent, > > Crash in many different places most likely. When looking at > validation, I'm more looking at making it easier for possible > future packet extensions not break older gdbserver. > > In this case, I do believe this bit: > > + p1 = strchr (p, ':'); > + decode_address (&resume_info[i].step_range_end, p, p1 - p); > > should not expect the ':' to be there. An action > without a ptid is valid. I means it applies to all and > is handled as the default action, further below: > > if (p[0] == 0) > { > resume_info[i].thread = minus_one_ptid; > default_action = resume_info[i]; > > /* Note: we don't increment i here, we'll overwrite this entry > the next time through. */ > } > else if (p[0] == ':') > > I'll fix it in a follow up. Fixed now: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-05/msg00923.html Thanks! -- Pedro Alves