Re: [PATCH v1 09/10] gdb/linux-tdep: parse ProtectionKey in /proc/PID/smaps
Thiago Jung Bauermann <[email protected]> Wed, 29 Jul 2026 01:10:37 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.patches |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Yury Khrustalev <[email protected]> writes: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 06:40:33AM +0000, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: >> Yury Khrustalev <[email protected]> writes: >> >> ... >> >> >> > The look-up of those overlay permissions is platform-specific). >> >> >> >> Considering that there are differences in how protection keys are >> >> implemented in different architectures (e.g., IIUC only Arm has overlay >> >> permissions), the whole "effective: r-- overlay: r--" part of the line >> >> should be printed by a gdbarch hook. >> >> >> >> > If no protection key support exists on the target, the PKey column would not be >> >> > printed. >> >> > Same for the threads' permissions (effective and overlay). >> >> >> >> Also even if protection key support is available, if there's no >> >> protection key set for any mapping then the column shouldn't be printed >> >> either. Or is there always a key associated with every mapping? >> > >> > I think the column should be just empty or have some placeholder like a >> > hyphen when mapping is not associated with a pkey. >> >> I don't see much use for an empty column (or one containing only >> placeholder values), but I also don't feel strongly about it. > > The point of the empty column (that is only shown when pkeys are > supported) is that it would show that none of your mappings use any > pkeys. I think this is useful piece of information. E.g. if I expect to > see a key but due to a bug it's not used, I don't want to not see this > column at all because I would think that my version of GDB does not > support it or something. Ah, indeed it makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. -- Thiago (he/him)