This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited

From: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
To: joseph at codesourcery dot com
Cc: drow at false dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, pedro at codesourcery dot com, uweigand at de dot ibm dot com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:48:34 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
References: <20091115173429.GB23483@caradoc.them.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0911151833510.28152@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:38:19 +0000 (UTC)
> From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
> 
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> > should continue stepping.  For x86_64 glibc, the magic name is
> > "__longjmp".  Otherwise, we do a frame check as before.
> 
> Nowadays you may need to handle ____longjmp_chk for glibc 2.11 as well.  
> Because distribution compilers may or may not enable _FORTIFY_SOURCE by 
> default, I suppose in principle the tests should be run explicitly with 
> different settings.

Isn't it a bit ridiculous that glibc, which is a GNU project, makes
the life of GDB, another GNU project, so difficult?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
  - From: Frank Ch. Eigler

References:
- RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]