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

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

On 02/05/2015 09:04 AM, Luis Machado wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 11:53 AM, Antoine Tremblay wrote:
>> 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....?
>
> It is certainly a valid concern.
>
>>
>>     But I sure would like to take a look at your patch if you have it
>> handy ?
>
> I just need to extract it from the tree and do a bit of an update. We 
> could probably merge both to robustify the tracepoint mechanism.
>
Yes that's sounds a good idea :)

Thanks!

>> 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.
>>>
>>
>