Re: [PATCH V4 6/6] Intel MPX bound violation handling.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Walfred Tedeschi <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Walfred Tedeschi <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>
> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:48:25 +0100
> 
> --- a/gdb/NEWS
> +++ b/gdb/NEWS
> @@ -3,6 +3,21 @@
>  
>  *** Changes since GDB 7.10
>  
> +* Intel MPX boud violation handler.
> +
> +   A boundary violations is presented to the inferior as
> +   a segmentation fault having SIGCODE 3. In this case
                                           ^^
Two spaces between sentences, please.

> +   GDB  displays also the kind of violation (upper or lower), 
> +   bounds, poiter value and the memory accessed, besides displaying
              ^^^^^^
"pointer"

> +   the usual signal received and code location report.
> +
> +   As exemplified below:
> +   Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault
> +   upper bound violation - bounds {lbound = 0x603010, ubound = 0x603023}
> +   accessing 0x60302f.
> +   0x0000000000400d7c in upper (p=0x603010, a=0x603030, b=0x603050,
> +   c=0x603070, d=0x603090, len=7) at i386-mpx-sigsegv.c:68

May I suggest to say

  accessing address 0x60302f.

instead?  That would be more clear, I think.

> --- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> +++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> @@ -22267,6 +22267,57 @@ whose bounds are to be changed, @var{lbound} and @var{ubound} are new values
>  for lower and upper bounds respectively.
>  @end table
>  
> +
> +A boundary violation is presented to the inferior as
> +a segmentation fault having SIGCODE 3. @value{GDBN} may display additional
                                        ^^
Two spaces.

> +information is displayed in this case.

"...may display additional information is displayed..."?  One of the
"display" and "displayed" is redundant here, I think.

> +                                          On @code{STOP} mode
> +@value{GDBN} will also display the kind of violation: "upper" or
> +"lower", bounds, pointer value and the address accessed.
> +On @code{NOSTOP} no additional information will be presented.

I suggest to say "In STOP mode" and "In NOSTOP mode".  "In", not "On".

> +The usual output of a segfault is:
> +@smallexample
> +Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault
> +0x0000000000400d7c in upper (p=0x603010, a=0x603030, b=0x603050,
> +c=0x603070, d=0x603090, len=7) at i386-mpx-sigsegv.c:68
> +68        value = *(p + len);
> +@end smallexample
> +
> +In case it is a bound violation it will be presented as:
> +@smallexample
> +Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault
> +upper bound violation - bounds @{lbound = 0x603010, ubound = 0x603023@}
> +accessing 0x60302f.
> +0x0000000000400d7c in upper (p=0x603010, a=0x603030, b=0x603050,
> +c=0x603070, d=0x603090, len=7) at i386-mpx-sigsegv.c:68
> +68        value = *(p + len);
> +@end smallexample

Why do we need to show here the output when no bound violation
happened?

Actually, why not move this description and the example to the
"Signals" node?  If I were a user who received such a notification,
the "Signals" node is where I would look for the explanations first.

Thanks.