This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[Bug gdb/11786] PIE support may not work for some PIEs
- From: "dje at google dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: gdb-prs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:42:30 +0000
- Subject: [Bug gdb/11786] PIE support may not work for some PIEs
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-11786-4717 at http dot sourceware dot org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11786
--- Comment #8 from dje at google dot com ---
(In reply to Jan Kratochvil from comment #5)
> (In reply to dje from comment #3)
> > suppose we ignore the flags field for all segments: what's the
> > worst that could happen?
>
> If you use non-matching build of an executable it may get incorrectly
> relocated by some small displacement. (*1)
>
> People sometimes try to use non-matching build, IMO it cannot give
> meaningful output but it may make their attempts even more difficult when
> the executable gets "randomly" displaced. Currently GDB does not display
> any notice it used PIE displacement (and there is also no longer any notice
> it used PIC displacement), unless one has "set verbose" (which nobody has).
> This may make a falsely-matched displacement a pain.
>
> (*1) Currently the displacement still has to be PAGE_SIZE aligned, if it is
> not PAGE_SIZE aligned no displacement gets used. But I have TODOlisted I
> should recheck the PAGE_SIZE requirement as it was removed for shlibs by
> 2da7921acc5c7b327b3619a95ca7ca36a0314dc4 and IMO it should be equally
> removed for compatibility with prelinked/unprelinked PIE executables.
If the addresses/displacements are different, sure. One recognizes that going
in.
But I asked about the flags field.
btw, 2da7921acc5c7b327b3619a95ca7ca36a0314dc4: kinda meaningless without some
reference to a repository. For archeology's sake, IWBN to record that here.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.