From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id B3B113858403; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:49:36 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B3B113858403 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1700495376; bh=N895hCOuX8zkLw0j9VvzkTjSKFPuqEddRTCiTCOnqks=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=aL5WIhlDVYPSAQaHxjUIADMQPLRmaViMshyLg7XGxkUtnghsZS+qffgBTORiknlNf 6swleSHjB/uGVrdzgbzGkVSxNRr9f5pMcN7aYoj4DH8Z4o3gTvtw4t/ikn9a8+bqn5 QMGfxMktL/LQUUuhpJ+8RIZKgMXsiDkqqATso37E= From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug tdep/28623] Missing catching return of execve syscall of PowerPC Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:49:36 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: tdep X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D28623 --- Comment #10 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #8) > I think that Tom was on a good path though, to save the syscall number at > the syscall entry event and use it for the syscall exit event. But inste= ad > of having an exception for execve, why not do that for all syscalls? >=20 The RFC I've posted only does it for execve (and only for powerpc for now as well). I suppose a clone event does not map uniquely to a system call, maybe it co= uld be either clone, clone2 or clone3? > The only issue I could think of is what happens when you attach GDB to a > thread while it is in a syscall, could it result in GDB receiving only a > syscall exit event, without a prior syscall enter event? In the RFC, in the first patch I've mentioned a scenario (not using attach though) where we can get a syscall exit event without observing a prior sys= call enter event. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=