From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 114311 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2018 09:04:44 -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 114301 invoked by uid 89); 19 Sep 2018 09:04:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_2,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=April, april, attribution, H*f:sk:yddlg80 X-HELO: smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE Received: from smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (HELO smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE) (129.70.160.84) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 09:04:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE134AB4; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:04:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (malfoy.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id f2AoeSMmtfvu; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:04:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [129.70.161.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5FF2AB3; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:04:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from ro@localhost) by lokon.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (8.15.2+Sun/8.15.2/Submit) id w8J94aBi020720; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:04:36 +0200 (MEST) From: Rainer Orth To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix /proc pathname sizes on Solaris References: <20180917183459.GE19172@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 09:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20180917183459.GE19172@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Mon, 17 Sep 2018 11:34:59 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00672.txt.bz2 Hi Joel, > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 04:11:35PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: >> I'm slowly working my way through the gdb patches from the >> solaris-userland repo >> >> https://github.com/oracle/solaris-userland/tree/master/components/gdb/patches >> >> Some of them are pretty obvious and should be able to go in (such as >> this one and the next), while others are either incomplete >> (e.g. 008-syscalls.patch, which adds XML descriptions of the Solaris >> syscalls, but lacks their registration) or inappropriate in their >> current form (unnecessarily intrusive). >> >> This one (001-fix-proc-name-size.patch) should be obvious given the >> patches' comment: >> >> # In Solaris, PID_MAX is 999999 (6 digit pid). >> # In Solaris, lwpid_t is an unsigned int, so theoretically the lwp id >> # could be 10 digits. >> >> Two questions about procedure here: >> >> * AFAIK Oracle has a corporate copyright assignment on file, so the >> patches should be covered. Even if that were not the case, this one >> and the next are certainly below the 15-line limit for non-trivial >> patches. > > I checked, and indeed, Oracle has a copyright assignment. > >> * Given the code isn't mine, how should we handle attribution? I >> suspect the engineer who committed the patch to github is the author, >> but don't know for certain. Should I attribute it to her in the >> ChangeLog? > > Can you ask the user in question if they are the author? If not, > can they help figuring out who it is? Ideally, we would want the > name and email of the author of the patch -- not sure what we should > be doing if we don't have that info. I've done some more digging myself: here's what I found: * The MAX_PROC_NAME_SIZE part (done slightly differently) was originally done by Stefan Teleman when he imported gdb 7.6 into the userland repo (gdb.procfs.c.patch). * The change to create_procinfo originated with April Chin when importing gdb 7.12.1 later (001-fix-proc-name-size.patch). * I had to make minor adjustments for master to account for my removal of !NEW_PROC_API So I'm going to attribute the patch to all three of us ;-) >> @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ create_procinfo (int pid, int tid) >> } >> else >> { >> - sprintf (pi->pathname, "/proc/%05d/lwp/%d", pid, tid); >> + sprintf (pi->pathname, "/proc/%d/lwp/%d", pid, tid); > > I am wondering how this ever worked for processes whose pid had > fewer than 5 digits. I was initially concerned that this patch > introduced a change of behavior that would create an incompatibility. > But looking at Solaris 2.8 and 2.11 systems, I see processes with > 3 or 4 digits PIDs, and the path in /proc doesn't have leading zeroes. Indeed, and Solaris procfs doesn't care if the part contains additional leading zeros or not. > I also checked whether the file might be used on platforms other than > Solaris (see configure.nat), and this does not appear to be the case. True: I removed support for all other previous users when getting rid of !NEW_PROC_API, IRIX and Tru64 UNIX support that had long been obsoleted. Rainer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University