This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] [AArch64] Fix step-over-syscall.exp failure
- From: Alan Hayward <Alan dot Hayward at arm dot com>
- To: Luis Machado <luis dot machado at linaro dot org>
- Cc: "gdb-patches\\@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, nd <nd at arm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:02:45 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [AArch64] Fix step-over-syscall.exp failure
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=enSEqGlLglAP6VFwHCFd0FlTLBy7C5frvIoRvlfZpII=; b=HDYug/3AAZ/HhCyKgSrzCGcoEhkgroetQ+MfOqQnxb9eD2A1gUjxA7OtBAqBIFoJDC89evT4PWeW8aTSvlswCJoXl+MKfi3lV4om60pGAz2K3uKi4lYzBVD/BgzrcJhfCSvuoiloaZPEQsSJ44wnwKaPF8PKNfwKvrCVJEOMKoxv66BU+dllUxnio73iGPfpiM0ntEQ5J2hbIssW1RhLFZyq40oonseZtYJuhjNrIJDHVdudhNEiAKIDOVm3xNOskHO8IRq4so1Kb4DXdprnmaI9kpwZUudQdKUwoaVSUSv2S7oh+qpkOmUoOhNmIB7As2d+UXE3woRt3qohD4Om8A==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=dQ5r+sF/7Lr8P6tuQUCaBoslb8D86KNhqIj68eyfzeyzJm5CZCX+7HPBRx61EZuFnlgmy2ED3SfaX/ayT2wSCWdGgexuJTuRCqDQ2F7MUNQ/DEcXilMk8k3/dsvfIAp31ufyqlHA8P3XdR13YaioSKJysw+r/gPERo0QlbLu3281qgNFCSd8boyt/DzHULAtOJFU10zfbVp0jU03qFGK+tPsuO9w3AGrlutWi+8vubrec66OMVH6Xu9S9GEp2PHXdVvl/tADUKoyjcyoJuoU7KU54HU3obMPnSIfb6fv7sUCIMtSbwOzYlhTvhjmYi3UpXg46ER0HYxQhbwGWFut0Q==
- Original-authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Alan dot Hayward at arm dot com;
- References: <20191230162535.21211-1-luis.machado@linaro.org>
> On 30 Dec 2019, at 16:25, Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> In particular, this one:
>
> FAIL: gdb.base/step-over-syscall.exp: fork: displaced=on: check_pc_after_cross_syscall: single step over fork final pc
>
> When ptrace fork event reporting is enabled, GDB gets a PTRACE_EVENT_FORK
> event whenever the inferior executes the fork syscall.
>
> Then the logic is that GDB needs to step the inferior yet again in order to
> receive a predetermined SIGTRAP, but no execution takes place because the
> signal was already queued for delivery. That means the PC should stay the same.
>
> I noticed the aarch64 code is currently adjusting the PC in this situation,
> making the inferior skip an instruction without executing it.
>
> The existing code abuses the pc_adjust variable to contain both an offset and
> also a bool telling GDB when to adjust the PC (pc_adjust != 0).
>
> This patch fixes this case by adding a new bool that tells us when we're
> supposed to adjust the PC, and then proceeding to check if we did not execute
> the instruction (pc - to == 0), making proper adjustments for such case.
>
> Regression tested on aarch64-linux-gnu on the tryserver.
>
> gdb/ChangeLog:
>
> 2019-12-30 Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org>
>
> * aarch64-tdep.c (struct aarch64_displaced_step_closure )
> <should_adjust_pc>: New member.
> <pc_adjust>: Adjust the documentation.
> (aarch64_displaced_step_b): Set should_adjust_pc.
> (aarch64_displaced_step_b_cond): Likewise.
> (aarch64_displaced_step_cb): Likewise.
> (aarch64_displaced_step_tb): Likewise.
> (aarch64_displaced_step_adr): Likewise.
> (aarch64_displaced_step_ldr_literal): Likewise.
> (aarch64_displaced_step_others): Likewise.
> (aarch64_displaced_step_fixup): Check if PC really moved before
> adjusting it.
>
> Change-Id: I828b7b7f2726f42ce107708f9692f07c63bf728c
> ---
> gdb/aarch64-tdep.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/aarch64-tdep.c b/gdb/aarch64-tdep.c
> index 1d5fb2001d..a639b753cd 100644
> --- a/gdb/aarch64-tdep.c
> +++ b/gdb/aarch64-tdep.c
> @@ -2737,7 +2737,12 @@ struct aarch64_displaced_step_closure : public displaced_step_closure
> is being displaced stepping. */
> int cond = 0;
Optional, but it’ll be nice if cond was a bool instead of an int.
(maybe a different patch)
>
> - /* PC adjustment offset after displaced stepping. */
> + /* True if we should adjust the PC after displaced stepping, false
> + otherwise. */
> + bool should_adjust_pc = false;
> +
> + /* PC adjustment offset after displaced stepping, if should_adjust_pc
> + is true. */
> int32_t pc_adjust = 0;
> };
>
> @@ -2783,6 +2788,9 @@ aarch64_displaced_step_b (const int is_bl, const int32_t offset,
> emit_nop (dsd->insn_buf);
> dsd->insn_count++;
> dsd->dsc->pc_adjust = offset;
> +
> + if (offset != 0)
> + dsd->dsc->should_adjust_pc = true;
I don’t understand why pc_adjust is set here (and in the functions below). What is special
about offset? I suspect this just needs an explanation.
> }
>
> if (is_bl)
> @@ -2818,6 +2826,9 @@ aarch64_displaced_step_b_cond (const unsigned cond, const int32_t offset,
> dsd->dsc->cond = 1;
> dsd->dsc->pc_adjust = offset;
> dsd->insn_count = 1;
> +
> + if (offset != 0)
> + dsd->dsc->should_adjust_pc = true;
> }
>
> /* Dynamically allocate a new register. If we know the register
> @@ -2852,6 +2863,9 @@ aarch64_displaced_step_cb (const int32_t offset, const int is_cbnz,
> dsd->insn_count = 1;
> dsd->dsc->cond = 1;
> dsd->dsc->pc_adjust = offset;
> +
> + if (offset != 0)
> + dsd->dsc->should_adjust_pc = true;
> }
>
> /* Implementation of aarch64_insn_visitor method "tb". */
> @@ -2877,6 +2891,9 @@ aarch64_displaced_step_tb (const int32_t offset, int is_tbnz,
> dsd->insn_count = 1;
> dsd->dsc->cond = 1;
> dsd->dsc->pc_adjust = offset;
> +
> + if (offset != 0)
> + dsd->dsc->should_adjust_pc = true;
> }
>
> /* Implementation of aarch64_insn_visitor method "adr". */
> @@ -2902,6 +2919,7 @@ aarch64_displaced_step_adr (const int32_t offset, const unsigned rd,
> address);
>
> dsd->dsc->pc_adjust = 4;
> + dsd->dsc->should_adjust_pc = true;
> emit_nop (dsd->insn_buf);
> dsd->insn_count = 1;
> }
> @@ -2929,6 +2947,7 @@ aarch64_displaced_step_ldr_literal (const int32_t offset, const int is_sw,
> aarch64_register (rt, 1), zero);
>
> dsd->dsc->pc_adjust = 4;
> + dsd->dsc->should_adjust_pc = true;
> }
>
> /* Implementation of aarch64_insn_visitor method "others". */
> @@ -2946,10 +2965,12 @@ aarch64_displaced_step_others (const uint32_t insn,
> if ((insn & 0xfffffc1f) == 0xd65f0000)
> {
> /* RET */
> - dsd->dsc->pc_adjust = 0;
> }
> else
> - dsd->dsc->pc_adjust = 4;
> + {
> + dsd->dsc->pc_adjust = 4;
> + dsd->dsc->should_adjust_pc = true;
> + }
> }
>
> static const struct aarch64_insn_visitor visitor =
> @@ -3030,13 +3051,15 @@ aarch64_displaced_step_fixup (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
> CORE_ADDR from, CORE_ADDR to,
> struct regcache *regs)
> {
> + ULONGEST pc;
> +
> aarch64_displaced_step_closure *dsc = (aarch64_displaced_step_closure *) dsc_;
>
> + /* Fetch the current PC, after the displaced execution took place. */
> + regcache_cooked_read_unsigned (regs, AARCH64_PC_REGNUM, &pc);
> +
> if (dsc->cond)
> {
> - ULONGEST pc;
> -
> - regcache_cooked_read_unsigned (regs, AARCH64_PC_REGNUM, &pc);
> if (pc - to == 8)
> {
> /* Condition is true. */
> @@ -3045,13 +3068,22 @@ aarch64_displaced_step_fixup (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
> {
> /* Condition is false. */
> dsc->pc_adjust = 4;
> + dsc->should_adjust_pc = true;
> }
> else
> gdb_assert_not_reached ("Unexpected PC value after displaced stepping");
> }
>
> - if (dsc->pc_adjust != 0)
> + if (dsc->should_adjust_pc)
> {
> +
> + /* Sometimes we may get a SIGTRAP even before executing an instruction.
> + Such is the case when we are stepping over a fork/vfork/clone syscall
> + and the instruction after the syscall instruction. Make sure we don't
> + adjust the PC when we did not really move. */
> + if ((pc - to) == 0)
> + dsc->pc_adjust = 0;
> +
Instead of setting dsc->pc_adjust to 0, would it be better to do:
if (dsc->should_adjust_pc && (pc - to) != 0)
{
if (debug_displaced) debug_printf...
regcache_cooked_write_unsigned....
}
Or maybe you do need to pc_adjust to 0. If so, then disregard this.
> if (debug_displaced)
> {
> debug_printf ("displaced: fixup: set PC to %s:%d\n",
> --
> 2.17.1
>