From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2037 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2007 03:40:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 2026 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Nov 2007 03:40:44 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:40:42 +0000 Received: from zps75.corp.google.com (zps75.corp.google.com [172.25.146.75]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id lAA3eYSa000372 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:40:35 GMT Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ugcm3.prod.google.com [10.66.114.3]) by zps75.corp.google.com with ESMTP id lAA3eXBn011580 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 19:40:33 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so535026ugc for ; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:40:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.67.115.2 with SMTP id s2mr213372ugm.1194666032669; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:40:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.67.21.14 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 19:40:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:40:00 -0000 From: "Douglas Evans" To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: linux-thread-db.c not only caller of add_thread, -> gdb segv In-Reply-To: <20071110032558.GA19831@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071109140225.GA32113@caradoc.them.org> <20071110032558.GA19831@caradoc.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 On Nov 9, 2007 7:25 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 05:26:56PM -0800, Douglas Evans wrote: > > GDB detects the exec and removes thread_db_ops from the target stack. > > But (a) it doesn't clear out thread_list and (b) still thinks it has control of > > the running process. > > (b) should be true, no? I suspect it's a matter of degrees (so to speak) or word choice (apologies). Until MAY_FOLLOW_EXEC is true for linux I'd expect gdb to return control to the user when an exec() happens. Am I wrong in thinking gdb will lose control across the exec()? > Exec support is somewhat horrible. I posted a patch for it recently > which might help (might not, I'm not sure). I'll try to find it and give it a try. Thanks.