This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] Validate binary before use
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, ARistovski at qnx dot com
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:58:01 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] Validate binary before use
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140302195248 dot 10290 dot 22958 dot stgit at host1 dot jankratochvil dot net> <837g8ctjkj dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20140308195717 dot GA2333 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <837g83pb47 dot fsf at gnu dot org>
On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 17:53:12 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > +Inferior shared libraries and symbol files may contain unique build-id.
> > +By default @value{GDBN} will ignore symbol files with non-matching build-id
>
> I suggest to say that between these two sentences. Something like
>
> @value{GDBN} expects the build-ids of each shared library and its
> corresponding symbol file to match. If they don't match, then by
> default @value{GDBN} will ...
Done.
> A question: does "match" here means the build-ids should be identical?
> If so, perhaps use "identical" or "equal" instead of "match".
Yes, therefore used "identical" and also replaced it in the code.
> > +while printing:
> > +
> > +@smallexample
> > + Shared object "libfoo.so.1" could not be validated and will be ignored;
> > + or use 'set solib-build-id-force'.
> > +@end smallexample
>
> Hmm... the text says that GDB will ignore symbol files, but the error
> message you cite complains about the shared library, and doesn't even
> mention the fact that the problem is a mismatch of the 2 build-ids.
> Why not say explicitly that the build-id of the symbol file doesn't
> match that of the shared library?
>
> Or did I misunderstand what this setting is about?
The terminology of local file vs. remote (=inferior) memory is being discussed
in other mail.
Thanks,
Jan