From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25588 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2013 18:36:23 -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 25578 invoked by uid 89); 6 Sep 2013 18:36:23 -0000 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 18:36:23 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout20.012.net.il Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MSP00300VM1P300@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 21:36:20 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MSP0035HVOK4180@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 21:36:20 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 18:36:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Trust readonly sections if target has memory protection In-reply-to: <20130906181015.GG3001@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83r4d1lrvn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1378432920-7731-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <83txhymr02.fsf@gnu.org> <522990FF.30608@codesourcery.com> <83mwnqmj8f.fsf@gnu.org> <20130906130332.GE3001@adacore.com> <8361uem5yv.fsf@gnu.org> <20130906145205.GF3001@adacore.com> <83y57akkp7.fsf@gnu.org> <20130906181015.GG3001@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00251.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:10:15 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > Perhaps a compromise: For the new feature to fail, it'd need an > > > extremely ancient version of Windows, coupled with a bad program > > > that writes outside of its memory area. How about we forgo the > > > Windows 9x detection, and just enable the feature on Windows > > > unconditionally? This removes the burden from Yao, who shouldn't > > > be asked to do this work unless he wants to. Then, if someone > > > believes it's necessary to turn the feature off by default on > > > old versions of Windows, it should be easy for them to do so. > > > > Fine with me, but then why not enable this on all platforms? > > Not all platforms are in the particular situation I was describing. Which platforms don't support memory protection of the kind we discuss here?