From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6367 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2014 08:29:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 6353 invoked by uid 89); 24 Oct 2014 08:29:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_STOCKGEN,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:29:46 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-06.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.120]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1XhaFi-0002uY-U0 from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 01:29:42 -0700 Received: from GreenOnly (147.34.91.1) by SVR-ORW-FEM-06.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 01:29:42 -0700 From: Yao Qi To: Joel Brobecker CC: Subject: Re: [RFA] ARM: stricter __stack_chk_guard check during prologue References: <20141022142231.GF4786@adacore.com> <87y4s7h553.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20141023153947.GA11707@adacore.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:29:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20141023153947.GA11707@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Thu, 23 Oct 2014 08:39:47 -0700") Message-ID: <87oat1x4bj.fsf@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00632.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker writes: Joel, I run regression tests on arm-linux-gnueabi with your patch. There are some fails on armv4t arm and thumb mode. It is an existing bug introduced by my patch :( and your patch just exposed it. I'll fix it sepa= rately. > /* If name of symbol doesn't start with '__stack_chk_guard', this > instruction sequence is not for stack protector. If symbol is > removed, we conservatively think this sequence is for stack protect= or. */ We need to update the comment to sync with the code below. > - if (stack_chk_guard.minsym > - && strncmp (MSYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (stack_chk_guard.minsym), > + if (stack_chk_guard.minsym =3D=3D NULL > + || strncmp (MSYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (stack_chk_guard.minsym), > "__stack_chk_guard", > strlen ("__stack_chk_guard")) !=3D 0) Otherwise, it looks good to me. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)