From 82b821e99da6e5360fcb86adf8edf73fd463240c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pedro Alves Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:25:40 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Subject: Fix range validation of integer commands with "unlimited". The range validation added by http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-03/msg00767.html Changes things to allow setting the command to INT_MAX or UINT_MAX directly, with signed and unsigned commands respectively. However, that went a little bit too far, as in the cases of var_integer and var_uinteger, those values are actually implementation detail. It's better to not expose them in the interface, and have users assume those values mean "unlimited" too, so to be safer to expand the range of the commands in the future if we want to. Yes, it's pedantic, and it's not likely users actually will do this, but MI frontends and Python scripts might. gdb/ 2013-03-22 Pedro Alves Yao Qi Mark Kettenis * cli/cli-setshow.c (do_set_command) : Don't let the user set the value to UINT_MAX directly. : Don't let the user set the value to INT_MAX directly. --- gdb/ChangeLog | 9 +++++++++ gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog index 26dafe9eada..a4027c9e6bd 100644 --- a/gdb/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +2013-03-22 Pedro Alves + Yao Qi + Mark Kettenis + + * cli/cli-setshow.c (do_set_command) : + Don't let the user set the value to UINT_MAX directly. + : Don't let the user set the value to INT_MAX + directly. + 2013-03-22 Jan Kratochvil * remote.c (remote_unpush_target): New function. diff --git a/gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c b/gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c index 95ebbe7b65d..f6123699e52 100644 --- a/gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c +++ b/gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c @@ -278,7 +278,12 @@ do_set_command (char *arg, int from_tty, struct cmd_list_element *c) if (c->var_type == var_uinteger && val == 0) val = UINT_MAX; - else if (val > UINT_MAX) + else if (val < 0 + /* For var_uinteger, don't let the user set the value + to UINT_MAX directly, as that exposes an + implementation detail to the user interface. */ + || (c->var_type == var_uinteger && val >= UINT_MAX) + || (c->var_type == var_zuinteger && val > UINT_MAX)) error (_("integer %s out of range"), plongest (val)); if (*(unsigned int *) c->var != val) @@ -300,7 +305,12 @@ do_set_command (char *arg, int from_tty, struct cmd_list_element *c) if (val == 0 && c->var_type == var_integer) val = INT_MAX; - else if (val > INT_MAX || val < INT_MIN) + else if (val < INT_MIN + /* For var_integer, don't let the user set the value + to INT_MAX directly, as that exposes an + implementation detail to the user interface. */ + || (c->var_type == var_integer && val >= INT_MAX) + || (c->var_type == var_zinteger && val > INT_MAX)) error (_("integer %s out of range"), plongest (val)); if (*(int *) c->var != val) -- 2.30.2