Re: [PATCH] Add support for bound table in the Intel MPX context.

[Walfred Tedeschi <walfred dot tedeschi at intel dot com>]

Am 9/30/2014 4:17 PM, schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
Eli,

Thank you very much for your prompt review.  See my answers below:
> > From: Walfred Tedeschi <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>
> > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Walfred Tedeschi <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>
> > Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:29:08 +0200
> >
> > In order to investigate the contents of the MPX boundary table two new commands
> > are added to GDB.  "mpx-info-bounds" and "mpx-set-bounds" are used to display
> > and set values on the MPX bound table.
> Thanks.
>
> > 	* NEWS: List new commands for MPX support.
> I don't see this part in the changeset you've sent.
I think it has got lost will add it!
> > doc:
> > 	* gdb.texinfo: Add documentation about "mpx-info-bounds"
> > 	and "mpx-set-bounds"
> Please state the name of the node in which you make the changes (as if
> it were a function).
Ok!
> > --- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> > +++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> > @@ -21482,6 +21482,16 @@ be returned in a register.
> >   @kindex show struct-convention
> >   Show the current setting of the convention to return @code{struct}s
> >   from functions.
> > +
> > +@item mpx-info-bound @var{pointer storage}
> Shouldn't this go into the next subsection, which describes features
> specific to the MPX support?
Yes it should! Will move.
> > +@kindex mpx-info-bound
> > +Displays the bounds of a pointer given its storage.
> What is a "pointer's storage"?  We should explain that here, otherwise
> this text is entirely unclear.  I also think that we should say a bit
> more about the bounds, so that readers will understand what this
> feature is about and how to use it to their advantage.
>
> > +@item mpx-set-bound @var{storage} @var{lbound} @var{ubound}
> > +@kindex mpx-set-bound
> > +Set the bounds of a pointer in the map given its storage. This command takes
>                                                             ^^
> Two spaces between sentences, please.
Sorry!
> > +three parameters @var{storage} is the pointers storage and @var{lbound} and
> Please add a colon ":" after "parameters", and a comma "," between
> "storage" and "and".
>
> > +@var{ubound} are lower and upper bounds new values respectivelly.
> "are the new values for the lower and the upper bound, respectively"
>
> (Only 1 'l' in "respectively".)
>
> > +static void
> > +i386_mpx_set_bounds (char *args, int from_tty)
> > +{
> > +  CORE_ADDR bd_base = 0;
> > +  CORE_ADDR addr, lower, upper;
> > +  CORE_ADDR bt_entry_addr = 0;
> > +  CORE_ADDR bt_entry[4];
> > +  int ret;
> > +  char *addr_str, *lower_str, *upper_str, *tmp;
> > +
> > +  if (!i386_mpx_enabled ())
> > +    error ("MPX not supported on this target.");
> > +
> > +  if (!args)
> > +    error ("Address of pointer variable expected.");
> > +
> > +  addr_str = strtok (args, " ");
> > +  if (!addr_str)
> > +    error ("Missing address of the pointer in the command.");
> > +
> > +  lower_str = strtok (NULL, " ");
> > +  if (!lower_str)
> > +    error ("Missing lower bound in the command.");
> > +
> > +  upper_str = strtok (NULL, " ");
> > +  if (!upper_str)
> > +    error ("Missing upper bound in the command.");
> > +
> > +  addr = parse_and_eval_address (addr_str);
> > +  lower = parse_and_eval_address (lower_str);
> > +  upper = parse_and_eval_address (upper_str);
> > +
> > +  bd_base = i386_mpx_bd_base ();
> > +  bt_entry_addr = i386_mpx_get_bt_entry (addr, bd_base);
> > +
> > +  ret = target_read_memory (bt_entry_addr, (gdb_byte *) bt_entry,
> > +			    sizeof (bt_entry));
> > +  if (ret)
> > +    error ("Cannot read bounds table entry at 0x%lx", (long) bt_entry_addr);
> > +
> > +  bt_entry[0] = (uint64_t) lower;
> > +  bt_entry[1] = ~(uint64_t) upper;
> > +
> > +  ret = target_write_memory (bt_entry_addr, (gdb_byte *) bt_entry,
> > +			     sizeof (bt_entry));
> > +
> > +  if (ret)
> > +    error ("Cannot write bounds table entry at 0x%lx", (long) bt_entry_addr);
> > +  else
> > +    i386_mpx_print_bounds (bt_entry);
> > +}
> Why aren't error messages in this function inside _() ?
Have to fix it!


Thanks a lot again!
For the next review you will see all those changes addressed.

Best regards,
-Fred
Intel GmbH
Dornacher Strasse 1
85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Lamprechter, Hannes Schwaderer, Douglas Lusk
Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456
Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052