From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53362) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fOXk4-0002Zu-SC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 May 2018 20:16:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fOXk1-0007Xp-NT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 May 2018 20:16:28 -0400 Received: from mail-pl0-x244.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c01::244]:37608) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fOXk1-0007W3-8K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 May 2018 20:16:25 -0400 Received: by mail-pl0-x244.google.com with SMTP id 31-v6so4277999plc.4 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 17:16:25 -0700 (PDT) References: <20180531224911.23725-1-richard.henderson@linaro.org> <20180531224911.23725-2-richard.henderson@linaro.org> From: Richard Henderson Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 17:16:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/6] gdbstub: Return the fd from gdbserver_start List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, laurent@vivier.eu, evgreen@chromium.org On 05/31/2018 04:15 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > Hi Richard, > > On 05/31/2018 07:49 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> This will allow us to protect gdbserver_fd from the guest. >> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson >> --- >> gdbstub.c | 5 +++-- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/gdbstub.c b/gdbstub.c >> index 6081e719c5..057d0d65c5 100644 >> --- a/gdbstub.c >> +++ b/gdbstub.c >> @@ -1890,15 +1890,16 @@ static int gdbserver_open(int port) >> int gdbserver_start(int port) >> { >> gdbserver_fd = gdbserver_open(port); >> - if (gdbserver_fd < 0) >> + if (gdbserver_fd < 0) { >> return -1; >> + } >> /* accept connections */ >> if (!gdb_accept()) { >> close(gdbserver_fd); >> gdbserver_fd = -1; >> return -1; >> } >> - return 0; >> + return gdbserver_fd; > > I agree with your change, but what about !CONFIG_USER_ONLY? It's still a non-negative number, so the success value is still the same. r~