Re: [PATCH] gdbserver: Fix crash when QTinit is handled with no inferior process attached

[Antoine Tremblay <antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com>]

Hi,
    I'm quite new to gdb, but in general I would argue that it's better 
to make a program resilient to wrong input then to sanitize the input, 
let's say someday something else then gdb would use gdbserver....?

    But I sure would like to take a look at your patch if you have it 
handy ?

    I'm not sure how to fix it on gdb's side yet...

On 02/05/2015 08:44 AM, Luis Machado wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 11:37 AM, Luis Machado wrote:
>> On 02/05/2015 11:30 AM, Antoine Tremblay wrote:
>>> ping
>>>
>>> On 01/27/2015 02:35 PM, Antoine Tremblay wrote:
>>>> When gdbserver is called with --multi and attach has not been 
>>>> called yet
>>>> and tstart is called on the gdb client, gdbserver would crash.
>>>> This patch fixes gdbserver so that it returns E01 to the gdb client.
>>
>> Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent GDB from sending any tracepoint
>> packets that require a running inferior if there is none?
>>
>> I remember fixing this in a local tree but on GDB's side. I think it is
>> remote.c:remote_trace_init and other related functions.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I've looked around and found the patch in a local tree of mine. It 
> fixes more cases of tracepoint commands that require a running inferior.
>
> I could revive and submit it if it makes things easier.
>