From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14736 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2009 18:39:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 14726 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2009 18:39:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:38:22 +0000 Received: (qmail 21549 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2009 18:38:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 15 Nov 2009 18:38:21 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N9jzP-0000dH-KF; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:38:19 +0000 Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:39:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Daniel Jacobowitz cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Ulrich Weigand Subject: Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited In-Reply-To: <20091115173429.GB23483@caradoc.them.org> Message-ID: References: <20091115173429.GB23483@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00340.txt.bz2 On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > should continue stepping. For x86_64 glibc, the magic name is > "__longjmp". Otherwise, we do a frame check as before. Nowadays you may need to handle ____longjmp_chk for glibc 2.11 as well. Because distribution compilers may or may not enable _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default, I suppose in principle the tests should be run explicitly with different settings. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com