From patchwork Fri Mar 4 16:39:37 2011 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Ulrich Weigand X-Patchwork-Id: 341 Return-Path: Delivered-To: unknown Received: from imap.gmail.com (74.125.159.109) by localhost6.localdomain6 with IMAP4-SSL; 08 Jun 2011 14:41:50 -0000 Delivered-To: patches@linaro.org Received: by 10.224.60.68 with SMTP id o4cs20840qah; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:39:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.15.82 with SMTP id j18mr577358eba.82.1299256779599; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:39:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtagate7.uk.ibm.com (mtagate7.uk.ibm.com [194.196.100.167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u13si5376261eeh.29.2011.03.04.08.39.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:39:39 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning uweigand@de.ibm.com does not designate 194.196.100.167 as permitted sender) client-ip=194.196.100.167; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning uweigand@de.ibm.com does not designate 194.196.100.167 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=uweigand@de.ibm.com Received: from d06nrmr1806.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1806.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.39.193]) by mtagate7.uk.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p24GdccB030378 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:39:38 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by d06nrmr1806.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p24GdpnZ1790176 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:39:51 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p24GdcqV006441 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:39:38 -0700 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with SMTP id p24Gdb8f006438 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:39:37 -0700 Message-Id: <201103041639.p24Gdb8f006438@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:39:37 +0100 Subject: [commit] Fix overly strict check in arm_skip_stack_protector To: patches@linaro.org Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:39:37 +0100 (CET) From: "Ulrich Weigand" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-02/msg00047.html ChangeLog: * arm-tdep.c (arm_skip_stack_protector): Accept any symbol that starts with __stack_chk_guard as stack guard symbol. diff -urNp gdb-orig/gdb/arm-tdep.c gdb-head/gdb/arm-tdep.c --- gdb-orig/gdb/arm-tdep.c 2011-02-02 19:44:56.000000000 +0000 +++ gdb-head/gdb/arm-tdep.c 2011-02-03 17:52:22.000000000 +0000 @@ -1296,7 +1296,8 @@ arm_skip_stack_protector(CORE_ADDR pc, s instruction sequence is not for stack protector. If symbol is removed, we conservatively think this sequence is for stack protector. */ if (stack_chk_guard - && strcmp (SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME(stack_chk_guard), "__stack_chk_guard")) + && strncmp (SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (stack_chk_guard), "__stack_chk_guard", + strlen ("__stack_chk_guard")) != 0) return pc; if (is_thumb)