From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 2D73738356BE; Thu, 26 May 2022 08:23:44 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2D73738356BE
From: "luis.machado at arm dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug gdb/28947] GDB does not remove AArch64 pointer signatures
 before doing memory accesses
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 08:23:44 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: luis.machado at arm dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: luis.machado at arm dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-28947-4717-II5WNydrCt@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-28947-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-28947-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
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
X-BeenThere: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gdb-prs mailing list <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-prs/>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 08:23:44 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D28947

--- Comment #6 from Luis Machado <luis.machado at arm dot com> ---
I see your point about making it a bit more convenient for the user. It's j=
ust
that we're dealing with best-effort cases here, as we don't know some of the
intentions the developer has before going and processing pointers.

It wouldn't be nice to have two distinct behaviors for the debuggers though.

As GDB already removes the (hardcoded) top 8 bits, I'm considering modifying
the hook to actually return a stripped pointer as opposed to letting generic
code remove X number of top bits.

This way we can make sure we output the proper stripped pointer. GDB had an
issue before where it failed to deal with kernel pointers, as it had to
sign-extend them while stripping the top bits.

I'll put something together along with a testcase.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=