This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Whacky ia64: linux_proc_xfer_partial and lseek vs pread64
- From: David Lecomber <david at lecomber dot net>
- To: gdb <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:15:36 +0000
- Subject: Whacky ia64: linux_proc_xfer_partial and lseek vs pread64
Dear Dan and all,
It's great that these days we use file access to get at the memory via
the /proc filesystem - but there's an interesting sighting on the ia64
(suse 9) in linux_proc_xfer_partial.
#ifdef HAVE_PREAD64
if (pread64 (fd, readbuf, len, offset) != len)
#else
if (lseek (fd, offset, SEEK_SET) == -1 || read (fd, readbuf, len) !=
len)
#endif
ret = 0;
else
ret = len;
So, Mr Itanium has pread64, it calls pread64.. it seems to fail
regularly.. As the strace log shows.
rt_sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, NULL, [], 8) = 0
open("/proc/21785/mem", O_RDONLY) = 4
pread(4, 0x60000fffffffa040, 64, 11529215046068469760) = -1 EINVAL
(Invalid argument)
close(4) = 0
ptrace(PTRACE_PEEKTEXT, 21785, 0xa000000000000000, NULL) =
282584257676671
open("/proc/21785/mem", O_RDONLY) = 4
pread(4, 0x60000fffffffa048, 56, 11529215046068469768) = -1 EINVAL
(Invalid argument)
close(4) = 0
ptrace(PTRACE_PEEKTEXT, 21785, 0xa000000000000008, NULL) = 0
open("/proc/21785/mem", O_RDONLY) = 4
But, if you change this to actually call lseek, instead of pread, it's a
bit more successful.
rt_sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, NULL, [], 8) = 0
open("/proc/22498/mem", O_RDONLY) = 4
lseek(4, 11529215046068469760, SEEK_SET) = 11529215046068469760
read(4, "\177ELF\2\1\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0002\0\1\0\0\0`\6\1\0"...,
64) = 64
close(4) = 0
open("/proc/22498/mem", O_RDONLY) = 4
lseek(4, 11529215046068469824, SEEK_SET) = 11529215046068469824
read(4, "\1\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\240\0\0"...,
224) = 224
close(4) = 0
open("/proc/22498/mem", O_RDONLY) = 4
lseek(4, 11529215046068469760, SEEK_SET) = 11529215046068469760
read(4, "\177ELF\2\1\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0002\0\1\0\0\0`\6\1\0"...,
3408) = 3408
Literally saving over 500 calls to ptrace() in just one stroke.
Anyone any idea what's going on? I'd be happy to let someone else
formulate the rather obvious patch, as I don't know the behaviour on
other platforms.
d.
--
David Lecomber <david@lecomber.net>