[RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Don Howard]

Executing a recursively defined user function results in a core-dump from 
gdb:

(gdb) define foo
Type commands for definition of "foo".
End with a line saying just "end".
>foo
>end
(gdb) foo
Segmentation fault (core dumped)


The following patch catches recursive user function definitions and 
disallowes them:



2002-04-03  Don Howard  <dhoward@redhat.com>

	* cli/cli-script.c (define_command): Avoid recursivly defined user
	commands.


Index: cli-script.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/cli/cli-script.c,v
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -p -u -w -r1.11 cli-script.c
--- cli-script.c        2002/03/17 19:53:39     1.11
+++ cli-script.c        2002/04/03 22:07:36
@@ -1099,6 +1099,13 @@ define_command (char *comname, int from_
   sprintf (tmpbuf, "Type commands for definition of \"%s\".", comname);
   cmds = read_command_lines (tmpbuf, from_tty);
 
+  {
+    struct command_line *c;
+    for (c=cmds; c; c=c->next)
+      if (strcmp (c->line, comname) == 0)
+       error ("Recursive user command definitions are not supported.");
+  }
+
   if (c && c->class == class_user)
     free_command_lines (&c->user_commands);


-- 
dhoward@redhat.com
gdb engineering

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Paul Hilfinger]

> Executing a recursively defined user function results in a core-dump from 
> gdb:

...

> The following patch catches recursive user function definitions and 
> disallowes them:

Is the segmentation fault the result of stack overflow?  If so, I
point out that there is an 'if' statement, so recursive commands are 
not necessarily wrong, are they?

P. Hilfinger

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Michael Snyder]

Paul Hilfinger wrote:
> 
> > Executing a recursively defined user function results in a core-dump from
> > gdb:
> 
> ...
> 
> > The following patch catches recursive user function definitions and
> > disallowes them:
> 
> Is the segmentation fault the result of stack overflow? 

Yes it is.

> If so, I
> point out that there is an 'if' statement, so recursive commands are
> not necessarily wrong, are they?

No they're not.  So it's a judgement call.  Is it more important
to allow recursive macros, or to prevent GDB from dumping core?
We're basically running an interpreter here...

I guess one thing we could do would be to impose an arbitrary
(possibly user-settable) stack depth limit.  That's more work, 
of course...

Michael

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Andreas Schwab]

Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> writes:

|> Paul Hilfinger wrote:
|> > 
|> > > Executing a recursively defined user function results in a core-dump from
|> > > gdb:
|> > 
|> > ...
|> > 
|> > > The following patch catches recursive user function definitions and
|> > > disallowes them:
|> > 
|> > Is the segmentation fault the result of stack overflow? 
|> 
|> Yes it is.
|> 
|> > If so, I
|> > point out that there is an 'if' statement, so recursive commands are
|> > not necessarily wrong, are they?
|> 
|> No they're not.  So it's a judgement call.  Is it more important
|> to allow recursive macros, or to prevent GDB from dumping core?
|> We're basically running an interpreter here...
|> 
|> I guess one thing we could do would be to impose an arbitrary
|> (possibly user-settable) stack depth limit.  That's more work, 
|> of course...

The simple minded check in Don's patch won't catch many cases of infinite
recursion anyway (mutual recursion, command invocation with arguments).

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Don Howard]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Andreas Schwab wrote:

> Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> |> Paul Hilfinger wrote:
> |> > 
> |> > > Executing a recursively defined user function results in a core-dump from
> |> > > gdb:
> |> > 
> |> > ...
> |> > 
> |> > > The following patch catches recursive user function definitions and
> |> > > disallowes them:
> |> > 
> |> > Is the segmentation fault the result of stack overflow? 
> |> 
> |> Yes it is.
> |> 
> |> > If so, I
> |> > point out that there is an 'if' statement, so recursive commands are
> |> > not necessarily wrong, are they?
> |> 
> |> No they're not.  So it's a judgement call.  Is it more important
> |> to allow recursive macros, or to prevent GDB from dumping core?
> |> We're basically running an interpreter here...
> |> 
> |> I guess one thing we could do would be to impose an arbitrary
> |> (possibly user-settable) stack depth limit.  That's more work, 
> |> of course...
> 
> The simple minded check in Don's patch won't catch many cases of infinite
> recursion anyway (mutual recursion, command invocation with arguments).
> 

I think I can detect mutual recursion by walking through the body of each
user-defined command (recursivly).  This amounts to static recursion 
detection. 

I think I could track simple recursion depth at runtime.

I don't see how to track mutual recursion depth at runtime.  Maybe do the
static recursion detection and recursivly flag user-defined commands in
the body?



Can you explain what you mean by "command invocation with arguments"?



-- 
dhoward@redhat.com
gdb engineering

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:01:13PM -0700, Don Howard wrote:
> I think I can detect mutual recursion by walking through the body of each
> user-defined command (recursivly).  This amounts to static recursion 
> detection. 
> 
> I think I could track simple recursion depth at runtime.
> 
> I don't see how to track mutual recursion depth at runtime.  Maybe do the
> static recursion detection and recursivly flag user-defined commands in
> the body?

How about something even simpler - track user command depth at runtime? 
Set an absurd limit, like 1024 deep, if we can handle that in a
normal-sized stack limit.  Then complain if we hit it at runtime.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Paul Hilfinger]

> How about something even simpler - track user command depth at runtime? 
> Set an absurd limit, like 1024 deep, if we can handle that in a
> normal-sized stack limit.  Then complain if we hit it at runtime.

I completely agree with this.  After all, if you were willing to
contemplate outlawing recursion altogether, you certainly won't LOSE
anything by Daniel's approach, and you gain everything you wanted in
the first place---to avoid crashing GDB.  

Paul

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Don Howard]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Paul Hilfinger wrote:

> 
> > How about something even simpler - track user command depth at runtime? 
> > Set an absurd limit, like 1024 deep, if we can handle that in a
> > normal-sized stack limit.  Then complain if we hit it at runtime.
> 
> I completely agree with this.  After all, if you were willing to
> contemplate outlawing recursion altogether, you certainly won't LOSE
> anything by Daniel's approach, and you gain everything you wanted in
> the first place---to avoid crashing GDB.  
> 
> Paul
> 


I like this approach, also.  


-- 
dhoward@redhat.com
gdb engineering

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Andreas Schwab]

Don Howard <dhoward@redhat.com> writes:

|> Can you explain what you mean by "command invocation with arguments"?

You can pass arguments even to a user defined command (referenced in the
body with $argN), but your check compares the whole line with the command
name, so if you pass any arguments to a recursive invocation you'll miss
it.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Don Howard]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Don Howard wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > How about something even simpler - track user command depth at runtime? 
> > > Set an absurd limit, like 1024 deep, if we can handle that in a
> > > normal-sized stack limit.  Then complain if we hit it at runtime.
> > 
> > I completely agree with this.  After all, if you were willing to
> > contemplate outlawing recursion altogether, you certainly won't LOSE
> > anything by Daniel's approach, and you gain everything you wanted in
> > the first place---to avoid crashing GDB.  
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> 
> 
> I like this approach, also.  
> 


2002-04-11  Don Howard  <dhoward@redhat.com>

	* cli/cli-cmds.c (init_cli_cmds): Add new user settable value:
	max_user_call_depth.
	(init_cmd_lists): Initialize the new value;
	* cli/cli-script.c (execute_user_command): Limit the call depth of
	user defined commands.  This avoids a core-dump when user commands
	are infinitly recursive.



Index: cli/cli-cmds.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/cli/cli-cmds.c,v
retrieving revision 1.18
diff -p -u -w -r1.18 cli-cmds.c
--- cli/cli-cmds.c	28 Mar 2002 01:35:56 -0000	1.18
+++ cli/cli-cmds.c	11 Apr 2002 17:30:58 -0000
@@ -80,6 +80,9 @@ static void shell_escape (char *, int);
 
 void apropos_command (char *, int);
 \f
+/* Limit the call depth of user-defined commands */
+int max_user_call_depth;
+
 /* Define all cmd_list_elements.  */
 
 /* Chain containing all defined commands.  */
@@ -606,6 +609,8 @@ show_debug (char *args, int from_tty)
 void
 init_cmd_lists (void)
 {
+  max_user_call_depth = 1024;
+
   cmdlist = NULL;
   infolist = NULL;
   enablelist = NULL;
@@ -823,4 +828,11 @@ With no arguments, run an inferior shell
 Argument is the name of the user defined command.\n\
 With no argument, show definitions of all user defined commands.", &showlist);
   add_com ("apropos", class_support, apropos_command, "Search for commands matching a REGEXP");
+
+  add_show_from_set (
+		      add_set_cmd ("max_user_call_depth", no_class, var_integer, 
+				   (char *) &max_user_call_depth,
+				   "Set the max call depth for user-defined commands.\n", 
+				   &setlist),
+		      &showlist);
 }
Index: cli/cli-script.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/cli/cli-script.c,v
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -p -u -w -r1.11 cli-script.c
--- cli/cli-script.c	17 Mar 2002 19:53:39 -0000	1.11
+++ cli/cli-script.c	11 Apr 2002 17:30:59 -0000
@@ -247,6 +247,15 @@ execute_cmd_post_hook (struct cmd_list_e
 }
 
 /* Execute the command in CMD.  */
+void
+do_restore_user_call_depth (void * call_depth)
+{	
+  int * depth = call_depth;
+  /* We will be returning_to_top_level() at this point, so we want to
+     reset our depth. */
+  (*depth) = 0;
+}
+
 
 void
 execute_user_command (struct cmd_list_element *c, char *args)
@@ -254,6 +263,8 @@ execute_user_command (struct cmd_list_el
   register struct command_line *cmdlines;
   struct cleanup *old_chain;
   enum command_control_type ret;
+  static int user_call_depth = 0;
+  extern int max_user_call_depth;
 
   old_chain = setup_user_args (args);
 
@@ -262,6 +273,11 @@ execute_user_command (struct cmd_list_el
     /* Null command */
     return;
 
+  if (user_call_depth++ > max_user_call_depth)
+    error ("Max user call depth exceeded -- command aborted\n");
+
+  old_chain = make_cleanup (do_restore_user_call_depth, &user_call_depth);
+
   /* Set the instream to 0, indicating execution of a
      user-defined function.  */
   old_chain = make_cleanup (do_restore_instream_cleanup, instream);
@@ -277,6 +293,8 @@ execute_user_command (struct cmd_list_el
       cmdlines = cmdlines->next;
     }
   do_cleanups (old_chain);
+
+  user_call_depth--;
 }
 
 enum command_control_type


-- 
dhoward@redhat.com
gdb engineering

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:55:26AM -0700, Don Howard wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Don Howard wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > > How about something even simpler - track user command depth at runtime? 
> > > > Set an absurd limit, like 1024 deep, if we can handle that in a
> > > > normal-sized stack limit.  Then complain if we hit it at runtime.
> > > 
> > > I completely agree with this.  After all, if you were willing to
> > > contemplate outlawing recursion altogether, you certainly won't LOSE
> > > anything by Daniel's approach, and you gain everything you wanted in
> > > the first place---to avoid crashing GDB.  
> > > 
> > > Paul
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > I like this approach, also.  
> > 
> 
> 
> 2002-04-11  Don Howard  <dhoward@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* cli/cli-cmds.c (init_cli_cmds): Add new user settable value:
> 	max_user_call_depth.
> 	(init_cmd_lists): Initialize the new value;
> 	* cli/cli-script.c (execute_user_command): Limit the call depth of
> 	user defined commands.  This avoids a core-dump when user commands
> 	are infinitly recursive.

Well, I like it.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Don Howard <dhoward@redhat.com>
> 
> 2002-04-11  Don Howard  <dhoward@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* cli/cli-cmds.c (init_cli_cmds): Add new user settable value:
> 	max_user_call_depth.
> 	(init_cmd_lists): Initialize the new value;
> 	* cli/cli-script.c (execute_user_command): Limit the call depth of
> 	user defined commands.  This avoids a core-dump when user commands
> 	are infinitly recursive.

Please add the documentation for this variable.  (A short notice in
NEWS is probably also a good idea.)

Thanks.

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Michael Snyder]

Don Howard wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Don Howard wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > How about something even simpler - track user command depth at runtime?
> > > > Set an absurd limit, like 1024 deep, if we can handle that in a
> > > > normal-sized stack limit.  Then complain if we hit it at runtime.
> > >
> > > I completely agree with this.  After all, if you were willing to
> > > contemplate outlawing recursion altogether, you certainly won't LOSE
> > > anything by Daniel's approach, and you gain everything you wanted in
> > > the first place---to avoid crashing GDB.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> >
> >
> > I like this approach, also.

So do I.   ;-)

> >
> 
> 2002-04-11  Don Howard  <dhoward@redhat.com>
> 
>         * cli/cli-cmds.c (init_cli_cmds): Add new user settable value:
>         max_user_call_depth.
>         (init_cmd_lists): Initialize the new value;
>         * cli/cli-script.c (execute_user_command): Limit the call depth of
>         user defined commands.  This avoids a core-dump when user commands
>         are infinitly recursive.
> 
> Index: cli/cli-cmds.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/cli/cli-cmds.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.18
> diff -p -u -w -r1.18 cli-cmds.c
> --- cli/cli-cmds.c      28 Mar 2002 01:35:56 -0000      1.18
> +++ cli/cli-cmds.c      11 Apr 2002 17:30:58 -0000
> @@ -80,6 +80,9 @@ static void shell_escape (char *, int);
> 
>  void apropos_command (char *, int);
> 
> +/* Limit the call depth of user-defined commands */
> +int max_user_call_depth;
> +
>  /* Define all cmd_list_elements.  */
> 
>  /* Chain containing all defined commands.  */
> @@ -606,6 +609,8 @@ show_debug (char *args, int from_tty)
>  void
>  init_cmd_lists (void)
>  {
> +  max_user_call_depth = 1024;
> +
>    cmdlist = NULL;
>    infolist = NULL;
>    enablelist = NULL;
> @@ -823,4 +828,11 @@ With no arguments, run an inferior shell
>  Argument is the name of the user defined command.\n\
>  With no argument, show definitions of all user defined commands.", &showlist);
>    add_com ("apropos", class_support, apropos_command, "Search for commands matching a REGEXP");
> +
> +  add_show_from_set (
> +                     add_set_cmd ("max_user_call_depth", no_class, var_integer,
> +                                  (char *) &max_user_call_depth,
> +                                  "Set the max call depth for user-defined commands.\n",
> +                                  &setlist),
> +                     &showlist);
>  }
> Index: cli/cli-script.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/cli/cli-script.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.11
> diff -p -u -w -r1.11 cli-script.c
> --- cli/cli-script.c    17 Mar 2002 19:53:39 -0000      1.11
> +++ cli/cli-script.c    11 Apr 2002 17:30:59 -0000
> @@ -247,6 +247,15 @@ execute_cmd_post_hook (struct cmd_list_e
>  }
> 
>  /* Execute the command in CMD.  */
> +void
> +do_restore_user_call_depth (void * call_depth)
> +{
> +  int * depth = call_depth;
> +  /* We will be returning_to_top_level() at this point, so we want to
> +     reset our depth. */
> +  (*depth) = 0;
> +}
> +
> 
>  void
>  execute_user_command (struct cmd_list_element *c, char *args)
> @@ -254,6 +263,8 @@ execute_user_command (struct cmd_list_el
>    register struct command_line *cmdlines;
>    struct cleanup *old_chain;
>    enum command_control_type ret;
> +  static int user_call_depth = 0;
> +  extern int max_user_call_depth;
> 
>    old_chain = setup_user_args (args);
> 
> @@ -262,6 +273,11 @@ execute_user_command (struct cmd_list_el
>      /* Null command */
>      return;
> 
> +  if (user_call_depth++ > max_user_call_depth)
> +    error ("Max user call depth exceeded -- command aborted\n");
> +
> +  old_chain = make_cleanup (do_restore_user_call_depth, &user_call_depth);
> +
>    /* Set the instream to 0, indicating execution of a
>       user-defined function.  */
>    old_chain = make_cleanup (do_restore_instream_cleanup, instream);
> @@ -277,6 +293,8 @@ execute_user_command (struct cmd_list_el
>        cmdlines = cmdlines->next;
>      }
>    do_cleanups (old_chain);
> +
> +  user_call_depth--;
>  }
> 
>  enum command_control_type
> 
> --
> dhoward@redhat.com
> gdb engineering

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Andreas Schwab]

Don Howard <dhoward@redhat.com> writes:

|> +
|> +  add_show_from_set (
|> +		      add_set_cmd ("max_user_call_depth", no_class, var_integer, 

I think this should use hyphens instead of underscores.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Michael Snyder]

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> 
> Don Howard <dhoward@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> |> +
> |> +  add_show_from_set (
> |> +                  add_set_cmd ("max_user_call_depth", no_class, var_integer,
> 
> I think this should use hyphens instead of underscores.

Yeah, that's sort of the unwritten convention.
Other than that, I like it.

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Fernando Nasser]

Michael Snyder wrote:
> 
> Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >
> > Don Howard <dhoward@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> > |> +
> > |> +  add_show_from_set (
> > |> +                  add_set_cmd ("max_user_call_depth", no_class, var_integer,
> >
> > I think this should use hyphens instead of underscores.
> 
> Yeah, that's sort of the unwritten convention.
> Other than that, I like it.

So do I.  It is approved conditional to this fix and the documentation.

(No need to resubmit -- just post the final version committed)
 
-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Don Howard]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Fernando Nasser wrote:

> Michael Snyder wrote:
> > 
> > Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > >
> > > Don Howard <dhoward@redhat.com> writes:
> > >
> > > |> +
> > > |> +  add_show_from_set (
> > > |> +                  add_set_cmd ("max_user_call_depth", no_class, var_integer,
> > >
> > > I think this should use hyphens instead of underscores.
> > 
> > Yeah, that's sort of the unwritten convention.
> > Other than that, I like it.
> 
> So do I.  It is approved conditional to this fix and the documentation.
> 
> (No need to resubmit -- just post the final version committed)
>  


Thanks. I've comitted the following:


Index: ChangeLog
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.2423
diff -p -u -w -r1.2423 ChangeLog
--- ChangeLog	12 Apr 2002 18:18:56 -0000	1.2423
+++ ChangeLog	12 Apr 2002 20:40:55 -0000
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+2002-04-12  Don Howard  <dhoward@redhat.com>
+
+	* cli/cli-cmds.c (init_cli_cmds): Add new user settable value:
+	max_user_call_depth.
+	(init_cmd_lists): Initialize the new value;
+	* cli/cli-script.c (execute_user_command): Limit the call depth of
+	user defined commands.  This avoids a core-dump when user commands
+	are infinitly recursive.
+
 2002-04-12  Andrew Cagney  <cagney@redhat.com>
 
 	* defs.h (read_relative_register_raw_bytes): Delete declaration.
Index: NEWS
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/NEWS,v
retrieving revision 1.61
diff -p -u -w -r1.61 NEWS
--- NEWS	31 Mar 2002 17:53:00 -0000	1.61
+++ NEWS	12 Apr 2002 20:41:05 -0000
@@ -3,6 +3,11 @@
 
 *** Changes since GDB 5.2:
 
+* New command "set max-user-call-depth <nnn>"
+
+This command allows the user to limit the call depth of user-defined
+commands.  The default is 1024.
+
 * Changes in FreeBSD/i386 native debugging.
 
 Support for the "generate-core-file" has been added.
Index: cli/cli-cmds.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/cli/cli-cmds.c,v
retrieving revision 1.18
diff -p -u -w -r1.18 cli-cmds.c
--- cli/cli-cmds.c	28 Mar 2002 01:35:56 -0000	1.18
+++ cli/cli-cmds.c	12 Apr 2002 20:41:07 -0000
@@ -80,6 +80,9 @@ static void shell_escape (char *, int);
 
 void apropos_command (char *, int);
 \f
+/* Limit the call depth of user-defined commands */
+int max_user_call_depth;
+
 /* Define all cmd_list_elements.  */
 
 /* Chain containing all defined commands.  */
@@ -606,6 +609,8 @@ show_debug (char *args, int from_tty)
 void
 init_cmd_lists (void)
 {
+  max_user_call_depth = 1024;
+
   cmdlist = NULL;
   infolist = NULL;
   enablelist = NULL;
@@ -823,4 +828,11 @@ With no arguments, run an inferior shell
 Argument is the name of the user defined command.\n\
 With no argument, show definitions of all user defined commands.", &showlist);
   add_com ("apropos", class_support, apropos_command, "Search for commands matching a REGEXP");
+
+  add_show_from_set (
+		      add_set_cmd ("max-user-call-depth", no_class, var_integer, 
+				   (char *) &max_user_call_depth,
+				   "Set the max call depth for user-defined commands.\n", 
+				   &setlist),
+		      &showlist);
 }
Index: cli/cli-script.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/cli/cli-script.c,v
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -p -u -w -r1.11 cli-script.c
--- cli/cli-script.c	17 Mar 2002 19:53:39 -0000	1.11
+++ cli/cli-script.c	12 Apr 2002 20:41:10 -0000
@@ -247,6 +247,15 @@ execute_cmd_post_hook (struct cmd_list_e
 }
 
 /* Execute the command in CMD.  */
+void
+do_restore_user_call_depth (void * call_depth)
+{	
+  int * depth = call_depth;
+  /* We will be returning_to_top_level() at this point, so we want to
+     reset our depth. */
+  (*depth) = 0;
+}
+
 
 void
 execute_user_command (struct cmd_list_element *c, char *args)
@@ -254,6 +263,8 @@ execute_user_command (struct cmd_list_el
   register struct command_line *cmdlines;
   struct cleanup *old_chain;
   enum command_control_type ret;
+  static int user_call_depth = 0;
+  extern int max_user_call_depth;
 
   old_chain = setup_user_args (args);
 
@@ -262,6 +273,11 @@ execute_user_command (struct cmd_list_el
     /* Null command */
     return;
 
+  if (++user_call_depth > max_user_call_depth)
+    error ("Max user call depth exceeded -- command aborted\n");
+
+  old_chain = make_cleanup (do_restore_user_call_depth, &user_call_depth);
+
   /* Set the instream to 0, indicating execution of a
      user-defined function.  */
   old_chain = make_cleanup (do_restore_instream_cleanup, instream);
@@ -277,6 +293,8 @@ execute_user_command (struct cmd_list_el
       cmdlines = cmdlines->next;
     }
   do_cleanups (old_chain);
+
+  user_call_depth--;
 }
 
 enum command_control_type
Index: doc/gdb.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.95
diff -p -u -w -r1.95 gdb.texinfo
--- doc/gdb.texinfo	7 Apr 2002 19:09:58 -0000	1.95
+++ doc/gdb.texinfo	12 Apr 2002 20:41:42 -0000
@@ -12781,6 +12781,13 @@ Display the @value{GDBN} commands used t
 not its documentation).  If no @var{commandname} is given, display the
 definitions for all user-defined commands.
 
+@kindex show max-user-call-depth
+@kindex set max-user-call-depth
+@item show max-user-call-depth
+@item set max-user-call-depth
+The value of @code{max-user-call-depth} controls how many levels deep a
+user-defined call chain can go.  Default is 1024.
+
 @end table
 
 When user-defined commands are executed, the





-- 
dhoward@redhat.com
gdb engineering

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Don Howard <dhoward@redhat.com>
>  
> +@kindex show max-user-call-depth
> +@kindex set max-user-call-depth
> +@item show max-user-call-depth
> +@item set max-user-call-depth

The second @item should be @itemx.  In general, all the @item's but
the first one should be @itemx when they all pertain to the same entry
in the @table (or in @itemize list).  This is so the produced text
looks like this:

  [previous text]

  show max-user-call-depth
  set max-user-call-depth
      The value of `max-user-call-depth' controls how many...

instead of this:

  [previous text]

  show max-user-call-depth

  set max-user-call-depth
      The value of `max-user-call-depth' controls how many...

where the extra line between the two @item's makes the first one look
as if the following text doesn't apply to it.

> +The value of @code{max-user-call-depth} controls how many levels deep a
> +user-defined call chain can go.

Perhaps this text is a bit more clear:

  The value of @code{max-user-call-depth} controls how many recursion
  levels are allowed in user-defined commands before GDB suspects an
  infinite recursion and aborts the command.

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Don Howard]

How's this?


2002-04-13  Don Howard  <dhoward@redhat.com>

	From Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
	* gdb.texinfo (show max-user-call-depth): Correct formatting.
	Provide a better explaination of this feature. 



Index: gdb.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.96
diff -p -u -w -r1.96 gdb.texinfo
--- gdb.texinfo	12 Apr 2002 22:31:23 -0000	1.96
+++ gdb.texinfo	13 Apr 2002 16:30:18 -0000
@@ -12784,9 +12784,10 @@ definitions for all user-defined command
 @kindex show max-user-call-depth
 @kindex set max-user-call-depth
 @item show max-user-call-depth
-@item set max-user-call-depth
-The value of @code{max-user-call-depth} controls how many levels deep a
-user-defined call chain can go.  Default is 1024.
+@itemx set max-user-call-depth
+The value of @code{max-user-call-depth} controls how many recursion
+levels are allowed in user-defined commands before GDB suspects an
+infinite recursion and aborts the command.
 
 @end table
 




On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Don Howard <dhoward@redhat.com>
> >  
> > +@kindex show max-user-call-depth
> > +@kindex set max-user-call-depth
> > +@item show max-user-call-depth
> > +@item set max-user-call-depth
> 
> The second @item should be @itemx.  In general, all the @item's but
> the first one should be @itemx when they all pertain to the same entry
> in the @table (or in @itemize list).  This is so the produced text
> looks like this:
> 
>   [previous text]
> 
>   show max-user-call-depth
>   set max-user-call-depth
>       The value of `max-user-call-depth' controls how many...
> 
> instead of this:
> 
>   [previous text]
> 
>   show max-user-call-depth
> 
>   set max-user-call-depth
>       The value of `max-user-call-depth' controls how many...
> 
> where the extra line between the two @item's makes the first one look
> as if the following text doesn't apply to it.
> 
> > +The value of @code{max-user-call-depth} controls how many levels deep a
> > +user-defined call chain can go.
> 
> Perhaps this text is a bit more clear:
> 
>   The value of @code{max-user-call-depth} controls how many recursion
>   levels are allowed in user-defined commands before GDB suspects an
>   infinite recursion and aborts the command.
> 

-- 
dhoward@redhat.com
gdb engineering

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Don Howard <dhoward@redhat.com>
> 
> How's this?

Perfect, thanks!

Re: [RFA] Avoid recursivly defined user functions.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Don Howard <dhoward@redhat.com>
> 
> 2002-04-11  Don Howard  <dhoward@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* cli/cli-cmds.c (init_cli_cmds): Add new user settable value:
> 	max_user_call_depth.

Please add the documentation for this variable.  (A short notice in
NEWS is probably also a good idea.)

Thanks.