From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Non-executable stack on SPARC
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:21:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <40153E6D.2050805@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200401252350.i0PNoB1O021806@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
> A while ago, I established that getting inferior function calls on
> SPARC working with a non-executable stack is remarkably simple. Just
> acknowledging that breakpoint instructions may cause SIGSEGV, as per
> the attached patch, is enough. However, some people were afraid that
> blindly applying this patch might cause some problems on other
> targets. I think there are two alternatives:
I thought the original patch was already committed? :-(
> 1. Only check for SIGSEGV if the target in question uses "ON_STACK"
> for its call_dummy_location.
A more robust check would be to confirm that a breakpoint is at that
address (naturally ignoring decr pc after break :-). However, does
later code check exactly that - confirming that the breakpoint explains
the stop reason?
> 2. Add a new method to the architecture vector to check whether a
> particular signal may have been the result of a breakpoint
> instruction. Suggested name & signature:
>
> int breakpoint_signal_p (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, int signal)
For this, that would be wrong. The target, in combination with the
breakpoint code, determines if a breakpoint leads to a sigsegv. Ex:
breakpoint code uses the target to unmap code segment, the target
indicates that a segment isn't executable, ...
> Preferences?
>
> I'd like to get this sorted before 6.1, since OpenBSD/sparc has a
> non-executable stack, and some people are running SPARC Solaris with a
> non-executable stack too.
Assuming that for VLIW gdb replaces the entire instruction bundle with a
breakpoint, a breakpoint instruction can only ever generate a sigtrap
(et.al.) (if executed) or sigsegv (if not accessible) so provided there
is a breakpoint at the PC I don't think there is any possability of
confusion (but again ignore decr pc after break :-).
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-26 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-25 23:50 Mark Kettenis
2004-01-25 23:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-01-26 6:51 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-01-26 6:51 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-01-26 12:42 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-01-27 8:16 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-02-01 17:48 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-02-01 20:13 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-02-02 18:37 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-01-26 16:21 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2004-01-27 8:00 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-02-01 17:54 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-02-02 18:27 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=40153E6D.2050805@gnu.org \
--to=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=kettenis@chello.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox