From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18507 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2015 16:45:48 -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 18492 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jan 2015 16:45:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 16:45:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t09Gjh03006584 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:45:43 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t09GRCi2023497; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:27:13 -0500 Message-ID: <54B00160.5000309@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 16:45:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Arnez , Jan Kratochvil CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [testsuite patch] for: [PATCH] [PR corefiles/17808] i386: Fix internal error when prstatus in core file is too big References: <874ms18cyz.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <20150108164327.GA29029@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87zj9s70bh.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <87zj9s70bh.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00224.txt.bz2 > Any other comments? Do we need to do the same in other places? This grep seems to suggest yes: $ grep assert * | grep sizeof | grep regset amd64obsd-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len >= tdep->sizeof_gregset + I387_SIZEOF_FXSAVE); amd64-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == tdep->sizeof_fpregset); amd64-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == tdep->sizeof_fpregset); i386obsd-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len >= tdep->sizeof_gregset + I387_SIZEOF_FSAVE); i386-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == tdep->sizeof_gregset); i386-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == tdep->sizeof_gregset); i386-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == tdep->sizeof_fpregset); i386-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == tdep->sizeof_fpregset); mips-linux-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == sizeof (mips_elf_gregset_t)); mips-linux-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == sizeof (mips_elf_gregset_t)); mips-linux-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == sizeof (mips_elf_fpregset_t)); mips-linux-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == sizeof (mips_elf_fpregset_t)); mips-linux-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == sizeof (mips64_elf_gregset_t)); mips-linux-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == sizeof (mips64_elf_gregset_t)); mips-linux-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == sizeof (mips64_elf_fpregset_t)); mips-linux-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == sizeof (mips64_elf_fpregset_t)); mn10300-linux-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == sizeof (mn10300_elf_gregset_t)); mn10300-linux-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == sizeof (mn10300_elf_fpregset_t)); mn10300-linux-tdep.c: gdb_assert (len == sizeof (mn10300_elf_gregset_t)); On 01/08/2015 04:16 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote: > Note that this behavior deviates from the default policy: In general, if > some future kernel adds new registers to a register set, then a GDB > unaware of this extension would read the known subset and just ignore > the unknown bytes. That's a good point. get_core_register_section checks the section size already: get_core_register_section (struct regcache *regcache, const struct regset *regset, const char *name, int min_size, int which, const char *human_name, int required) { ... size = bfd_section_size (core_bfd, section); if (size < min_size) { warning (_("Section `%s' in core file too small."), section_name); return; } ... Should we remove all those asserts, and make it the job of get_core_register_section to warn if the section size is bigger than expected? We may need to pass the "expected" section size to the callback, in addition to the "minimum" size though. Thanks, Pedro Alves