Re: vdso handling
Pedro Alves <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.binutils,gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 06/01/2014 09:31 PM, Samuel Bronson wrote: > Pedro Alves <[email protected]> writes: >> Some glibc versions even include the vdso in the DSO list (*), and GDB >> should be able to tell that that DSO is the vDSO (by matching addresses), and > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Hmm, why don't we already do that? It's bound to be easier than meeting > the conditions to get glibc to stop falsely cliaming that the vDSO comes > from a file <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13097#c5>. Dunno. Because nobody has done it? I suppose that's what Ulrich meant in <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13097#c1>. >> (*) note how linux-vdso.so.1 is listed by ldd, even if "info shared" in gdb >> doesn't show it, on some systems. > > What versions don't list the vdso under some name or other? (Mine calls > it linux-gate.so.1 for some reason.) I don't know versions numbers, but all before the glibc commit mentioned in <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13097#c1> I guess, and also, see the rest of the discussion there, indicating that Fedora carries a reversion of the offending patch. -- Pedro Alves