vdso handling
Pedro Alves
palves@redhat.com
Fri Mar 21 15:55:00 GMT 2014
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Fri Mar 21 15:55:00 GMT 2014
- Previous message (by thread): vdso handling
- Next message (by thread): vdso handling
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 03/20/2014 01:59 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 08:29:47AM +0000, Metzger, Markus T wrote: >> Shouldn't the ehdr indicate that there are no sections in this case? > > Nope. See my other email to Pedro. > >> If we can't trust the image to contain everything that the ELF header >> describes, would it be safer to generate fake sections based on the >> program header? We already assume that the program header is >> contained in the image. > > Yes, you're correct that it is wrong to assume program headers are > loaded. Even worse, the in-memory image doesn't even need to contain > the ELF file header. Yeah, and I was just assuming it didn't, hence my "just trust the headers" push before. I'm now thinking that we'll need pseudo-sections from program headers anyway, so I'd suggest going in that direction, leaving the add-symbol-file-from-memory command's intention generic, and leave revisiting how gdb retrieves the vdso itself off of memory for another day. -- Pedro Alves
- Previous message (by thread): vdso handling
- Next message (by thread): vdso handling
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list