This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[0/9]#2 Fix lost siginfo_t
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:09:55 +0200
- Subject: [0/9]#2 Fix lost siginfo_t
series #2 of: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-07/msg00405.html
Hi,
currently GDB's postponing and resending signals across threads drops the
associated siginfo_t information. This can break real world inferiors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=413842
and it is also tested by a new testcase.
IMO all current `int status', `int host_signal' and `enum target_signal'
should be associated with their siginfo_t as otherwise they carry incomplete
information. This is implemented by this patchset although it brings sizeof
(target_signal) to 144. It is currently passed by value everywhere, it could
be shortened by the currently unused 80 bytes siginfo_t padding to 64 bytes.
I tried to make target_signal a pointer with reference counter. I have the
unfinished patch here but I really do not find it viable. All the assignments
and passing by value to functions make it difficult to catch all the cases.
With C++ GDB this patchset could be greatly simplified with fixed performance.
Fortunately target_signal does not have to be allocated dynamically. The
maximum-over-all-targets of sizeof (siginfo_t) is known during compilation.
Even for remote targets the tdep file must be compiled in. And GDB currently
does not support any dlopen()able plugin tdeps (*). Therefore currently if
none of the siginfo-supporting targets ({amd64,i386,arm}-linux) is compiled in
this patchset has absolutely no new overhead.
(*) One can probably dlopen() a new tdep .so file through python. Let this be
unsupported, it could internal_error in target_signal_siginfo_set otherwise.
Some native host files probably got broken needing trivial updates for the
target_signal_t->struct change. I did some obvious ones but I could not catch
all without the specific host machine for a build.
Planned gdb/remote.c part will probably need to modify the
target_signal_siginfo_* functions a bit, therefore only RFCing that part now
to be checked-in only together with the gdb/remote.c part later.
No regressions on {x86_64,x86_64-m32,i686}-fedora14snapshot-linux-gnu.
New gdb.threads/siginfo-threads.exp fully PASSes there.
{ppc64,s390x}-rhel60snapshot-linux-gnu: no regressions.
New gdb.threads/siginfo-threads.exp PASSes but si_* checks are unsupported
as gdbarch_get_siginfo_type is not supported there.
{ppc64(ppc),ia64,s390x}-rhel56-linux-gnu: no regressions.
New gdb.threads/siginfo-threads.exp is completely UNSUPPORTED as the kernel
there has no rt_tgsigqueueinfo syscall.
Not yet done:
* gdb/remote.c still does not feature the siginfo_t preservation.
I definitely need/plan to implement it for gdb/remote.c .
Still the communication will probably get slowed down - both by more
round-trips to always fetch+push associated TARGET_OBJECT_SIGNAL_INFO and
also by all the 128 bytes blocks transferred back and forth. The protocol
would be probably appropriate to extend a bit for it. I would normally
rather care about ugdb (Linux kernel server, GPLv2) than FSF GDB gdbserver,
unless required for the FSF GDB gdb/remote.c counterpart patch acceptance.
Not planned for this patchset:
* gdb/gdbserver/ siginfo_t preservation. I would normally
rather care about ugdb (Linux kernel server, GPLv2) than FSF GDB gdbserver,
unless required for the FSF GDB gdb/remote.c counterpart patch acceptance.
* sim/ did not use `enum target_signal' and now it still does not use
`target_signal_t' and none of the associated accessors. There are several
new FIXMEs at the gdb/remote-sim.c interface.
* As target_signal_t is now gdbarch-specific for the specific frame I guess
if you get in SPU frame a signal with "stop print pass", do `(gdb) return'
to get out into a PPC frame and do `(gdb) continue' GDB will gdb_assert due
to non-matching gdbarch. One could probably extend siginfo_fixup() for
this case although it is more questionable what behavior is correct in such
case.
Thanks,
Jan