From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12645 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2014 14:13:54 -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 12623 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jul 2014 14:13:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:13:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6OEDnBV023520 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:13:50 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6OEDl7M024148; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:13:47 -0400 Message-ID: <53D1149A.101@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:17:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Gary Benson , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Doug Evans Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 v4] Remove some GDBSERVER checks from linux-ptrace References: <1406206287-6817-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <1406206287-6817-3-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <53D108F0.9060100@redhat.com> <87oaweonp4.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87oaweonp4.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00635.txt.bz2 On 07/24/2014 03:07 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > >>> + current_ptrace_options |= PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE | >>> + (additional_flags & ~(PTRACE_O_TRACESYSGOOD >>> + | PTRACE_O_TRACEVFORKDONE)); > > Pedro> This isn't right. That enables e.g., PTRACE_O_TRACEEXIT, for example, > Pedro> and possibly invalid flags even. > > I don't see how that can happen. I think the "&" prevents it. If the caller puts PTRACE_O_TRACEEXIT in additional_flags, that'll enable it, even though that's not what the test that led to that code was making sure the kernel supported. (PTRACE_O_TRACEEXIT was added to the kernel at the same time as PTRACE_EVENT_VFORK_DONE, not the fork/exec flags). -- Thanks, Pedro Alves