From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D57413857C43 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 20:47:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org D57413857C43 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (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 2CC851E792; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 16:47:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix crash if connection drops in scoped_restore_current_thread's ctor To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200708233125.1030-1-pedro@palves.net> <55d70953-e032-fe6a-1656-d7ad7080b863@simark.ca> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 16:47:15 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 20:47:20 -0000 On 2020-07-22 4:37 p.m., Pedro Alves wrote: > I'm thinking that to fix this we will need a generation counter in > reinit_frame_cache. Then in frame_unwind_try_unwinder, don't call > frame_cleanup_after_sniffer if the generation is not the same as it was > on entry. > > Something like this. Does it fix it for you? I can't seem to reproduce > the crash here. I don't have time to try, but the approach makes sense. It also crossed my mind, but I thought it would be more complicated to implement than that. Simon