From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 119291 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2016 17:51:01 -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 119262 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jan 2016 17:51:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1883, HX-Received-From:4830, HX-Received-From:134, HX-Received-From:2001 X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:50:59 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aMJNl-0007yT-17 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:50:57 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:49452) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aMJNk-0007yP-Tm; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:50:52 -0500 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4455 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aMJNk-0006Bd-4F; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:50:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:51:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83io2m95yt.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Walfred Tedeschi CC: "palves"@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <56A11694.4000502@intel.com> (message from Walfred Tedeschi on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:34:12 +0100) Subject: Re: FW: [PATCH V4 6/6] Intel MPX bound violation handling. Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <1453387705-6597-1-git-send-email-walfred.tedeschi@intel.com> <1453387705-6597-7-git-send-email-walfred.tedeschi@intel.com> <83vb6m9a0u.fsf@gnu.org> <56A11694.4000502@intel.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00544.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:34:12 +0100 > From: Walfred Tedeschi > > >> +The usual output of a segfault is: > >> +@smallexample > >> +Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault > >> +0x0000000000400d7c in upper (p=0x603010, a=0x603030, b=0x603050, > >> +c=0x603070, d=0x603090, len=7) at i386-mpx-sigsegv.c:68 > >> +68 value = *(p + len); > >> +@end smallexample > >> + > >> +In case it is a bound violation it will be presented as: > >> +@smallexample > >> +Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault upper bound > >> +violation - bounds @{lbound = 0x603010, ubound = 0x603023@} accessing > >> +0x60302f. > >> +0x0000000000400d7c in upper (p=0x603010, a=0x603030, b=0x603050, > >> +c=0x603070, d=0x603090, len=7) at i386-mpx-sigsegv.c:68 > >> +68 value = *(p + len); > >> +@end smallexample > > Why do we need to show here the output when no bound violation happened? > > > > Actually, why not move this description and the example to the "Signals" node? If I were a user who received such a notification, the "Signals" node is where I would look for the explanations first. > I will move it there. About the example I wanted to show where the > change will be placed. If you consider that this is superfluous, no > issue in removing. If you move the description there, showing both examples would be good. In the place where you put it, only the bounds violation is described, so it is strange to have there the display without bounds violation. > Will the snippet bellow be better? > > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault upper bound > violation - bounds @{lbound = 0x603010, ubound = 0x603023@} accessing > 0x60302f. I still think the word "address" should be added after "accessing". But if no one else thinks it's important, I don't insist. Thanks.