From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2249E3971810 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:29:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 2249E3971810 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 107GTT1O017805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:29:34 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 107GTT1O017805 Received: from [10.0.0.213] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A277A1E519; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:29:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/remote] Fix invalid pointer in remote_async_serial_handler To: Tom de Vries , Andrew Burgess Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Simon Marchi References: <20210107133926.GA6319@delia> <20210107151538.GQ2945@embecosm.com> <9e91b3c0-96f4-f6ac-411e-2319b3ba38f2@suse.de> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:29:29 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9e91b3c0-96f4-f6ac-411e-2319b3ba38f2@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:29:30 +0000 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 16:29:39 -0000 On 2021-01-07 11:27 a.m., Tom de Vries wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > [ cc-ing Simon again ] > > Simon did mention in the discussion in the PR that he would submit the > series, so yes, I was aware of that. > >> You said above that your patch is proposed for gdb-10-branch, but also >> that it could be applied to master. I think that this would be fine >> applied to the gdb-10-branch, > Thanks for the review. > >> but I think Simon's fix would be better >> for master. >> > Sure, that's fine by me. > > I just wanted to mention the possibility of committing this to master, > and let others decide whether that's a good idea. > >> Though that said, I notice your credit Simon & Pedro in the ChangeLog, >> so maybe they've expressed a preference for this solution somewhere >> and I've just missed it? > The patch was written by Pedro, and Simon provided the trigger patch. > The patch was discussed as possibility for gdb-10-branch, and this is > the submission for that. > > Hope this clarifies things a bit. > > Thanks, > - Tom I agree that the refcount patch would be good for GDB 10, it's less invasive. I still intend to merge my patch series in master, but I am waiting for an ack from Pedro, who is quite busy at the moment. Simon