From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id yOUHJ/U291/GDQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 11:29:41 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9C1691E965; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:29:41 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6FF61E519 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:29:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B103971814; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:29:40 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 39B103971814 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1610036980; bh=SpSojxaCnb1lFdrGy/Rvkr2D+rtn6FBXSs362athws0=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=U61WG8dpnJjBBWrJo2KQTh+iAgseILNefxGHlV3gOrAbbxsWgAA9j/YYSdawB2KjG sA9EuARQLlTTMuuFSVxi+Z3b2CB+C4ZnW9BXkKg6VWnJCavvMx8zB1Iya0K5gQU9Xk dCRFkMRB0ZaYwIuVklRnt9evROVbwlE+pmxuLxQE= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2249E3971810 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:29:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 2249E3971810 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 107GTT1O017805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:29:34 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 107GTT1O017805 Received: from [10.0.0.213] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A277A1E519; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:29:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/remote] Fix invalid pointer in remote_async_serial_handler To: Tom de Vries , Andrew Burgess References: <20210107133926.GA6319@delia> <20210107151538.GQ2945@embecosm.com> <9e91b3c0-96f4-f6ac-411e-2319b3ba38f2@suse.de> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:29:29 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9e91b3c0-96f4-f6ac-411e-2319b3ba38f2@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:29:30 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: Simon Marchi , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-01-07 11:27 a.m., Tom de Vries wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > [ cc-ing Simon again ] > > Simon did mention in the discussion in the PR that he would submit the > series, so yes, I was aware of that. > >> You said above that your patch is proposed for gdb-10-branch, but also >> that it could be applied to master. I think that this would be fine >> applied to the gdb-10-branch, > Thanks for the review. > >> but I think Simon's fix would be better >> for master. >> > Sure, that's fine by me. > > I just wanted to mention the possibility of committing this to master, > and let others decide whether that's a good idea. > >> Though that said, I notice your credit Simon & Pedro in the ChangeLog, >> so maybe they've expressed a preference for this solution somewhere >> and I've just missed it? > The patch was written by Pedro, and Simon provided the trigger patch. > The patch was discussed as possibility for gdb-10-branch, and this is > the submission for that. > > Hope this clarifies things a bit. > > Thanks, > - Tom I agree that the refcount patch would be good for GDB 10, it's less invasive. I still intend to merge my patch series in master, but I am waiting for an ack from Pedro, who is quite busy at the moment. Simon