This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: vdso handling
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Samuel Bronson <naesten at gmail dot com>, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:45:02 +0100
- Subject: Re: vdso handling
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <A78C989F6D9628469189715575E55B230AA884EB at IRSMSX104 dot ger dot corp dot intel dot com> <20140312071701 dot GW26922 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <CADPb22SAmK5JB3muW_nCvuHN5L-aOcdyzYNR+OtnM3bA1x_OJg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAHACq4o=HmdCo1FPFL-96raf2UN805jvM=VZM-9dbKrmzJFJTw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140313010147 dot GZ26922 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <A78C989F6D9628469189715575E55B230AA9CDCB at IRSMSX103 dot ger dot corp dot intel dot com> <5321834E dot 9000509 at redhat dot com> <53218C92 dot 9050303 at redhat dot com> <87a99w2wxw dot fsf at naesten dot mooo dot com>
On 06/01/2014 09:31 PM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> Pedro Alves <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13097#c5>.
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 <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13097#c1>
I guess, and also, see the rest of the discussion there, indicating
that Fedora carries a reversion of the offending patch.