From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 580 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2014 12:45:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 560 invoked by uid 89); 6 Jun 2014 12:45:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 12:45:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s56Cj59J006855 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:45:06 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s56Cj33s027648; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:45:04 -0400 Message-ID: <5391B7CE.7000500@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 12:45:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Samuel Bronson , gdb@sourceware.org CC: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: vdso handling References: <20140312071701.GW26922@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20140313010147.GZ26922@bubble.grove.modra.org> <5321834E.9000509@redhat.com> <53218C92.9050303@redhat.com> <87a99w2wxw.fsf@naesten.mooo.com> In-Reply-To: <87a99w2wxw.fsf@naesten.mooo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 On 06/01/2014 09:31 PM, Samuel Bronson wrote: > Pedro Alves writes: >> Some glibc versions even include the vdso in the DSO list (*), and GDB >> should be able to tell that that DSO is the vDSO (by matching addresses), and > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Hmm, why don't we already do that? It's bound to be easier than meeting > the conditions to get glibc to stop falsely cliaming that the vDSO comes > from a file . Dunno. Because nobody has done it? I suppose that's what Ulrich meant in . >> (*) note how linux-vdso.so.1 is listed by ldd, even if "info shared" in gdb >> doesn't show it, on some systems. > > What versions don't list the vdso under some name or other? (Mine calls > it linux-gate.so.1 for some reason.) I don't know versions numbers, but all before the glibc commit mentioned in I guess, and also, see the rest of the discussion there, indicating that Fedora carries a reversion of the offending patch. -- Pedro Alves