Valgrind Hurd - plan changes

2014-09-13 Thread Subhashish Pradhan
Hello, I faced a small problem at the end of GSoC. The problem was that the patch set faced "dirty patch" warnings while applying them on a fresh Valgrind source. So I looked up about it and came to the conclusion that they couldn't be solved easily. There were alternatives like forking(or import

Re: GDB testsuite: »Memory at address 0 is possibly executable«

2014-09-13 Thread Samuel Thibault
Richard Braun, le Sat 13 Sep 2014 10:13:48 +0200, a écrit : > (with the interesting addition that, if MAP_FIXED isn't set, > but the hint is non-zero, the returned mapping must not start at > address 0). Well, it's not easy to implement this, since vm_map is generic, and could be used for other ki

Re: GDB testsuite: »Memory at address 0 is possibly executable«

2014-09-13 Thread Richard Braun
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 01:39:05AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > So it seems we need what is not actually documented, i.e. a vm_map > with anywhere=1, but which takes into account the suggested address. > I'm fine with officially supporting that, we just need to fix the > documentation, and fix a

Re: GDB testsuite: »Memory at address 0 is possibly executable«

2014-09-13 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Sat 13 Sep 2014 09:54:56 +0200, a écrit : > I've dug a bit more, glibc's _hurd_startup reserves page 0, so no vm_map > or vm_allocate call should be allocating at address 0. But with the > change, address 0 is already taken by the first mapped binary, ld.so. I > guess exec needs

Re: GDB testsuite: »Memory at address 0 is possibly executable«

2014-09-13 Thread Samuel Thibault
Justus Winter, le Sat 13 Sep 2014 02:40:17 +0200, a écrit : > Quoting Samuel Thibault (2014-09-13 01:39:05) > > So it seems we need what is not actually documented, i.e. a vm_map > > with anywhere=1, but which takes into account the suggested address. > > I'm fine with officially supporting that, w