This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PATCH: Support x32 siginfo_t conversion


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 12:21:33 -0700
>> From: "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch implements x32 siginfo_t conversion. ?Tested on Linux/x86-64.
>> OK to install?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> H.J.
>> --
>> ? ? ? * amd64-linux-nat.c (compat_x32_clock_t): New.
>> ? ? ? (compat_x32_siginfo_t): Likewise.
>> ? ? ? (compat_x32_siginfo_from_siginfo): Likewise.
>> ? ? ? (siginfo_from_compat_x32_siginfo): Likewise.
>> ? ? ? (amd64_linux_siginfo_fixup): Call compat_x32_siginfo_from_siginfo
>> ? ? ? and siginfo_from_compat_x32_siginfo for x32.
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/amd64-linux-nat.c b/gdb/amd64-linux-nat.c
>> index 3be8404..97c9a49 100644
>> --- a/gdb/amd64-linux-nat.c
>> +++ b/gdb/amd64-linux-nat.c
>> @@ -591,6 +591,67 @@ typedef struct compat_siginfo
>> ? ?} _sifields;
>> ?} compat_siginfo_t;
>>
>> +/* For x32, clock_t in _sigchld is 64bit aligned at 4 bytes. ?*/
>> +typedef long __attribute__ ((__aligned__ (4))) compat_x32_clock_t;
>
> Sorry, but that isn't acceptable.
>
> Is your X32 ABI really that broken?
>
>> +typedef struct compat_x32_siginfo
>> +{
>> + ?int si_signo;
>> + ?int si_errno;
>> + ?int si_code;
>> +
>> + ?union
>> + ?{
>> + ? ?int _pad[((128 / sizeof (int)) - 3)];
>> +
>> + ? ?/* kill() */
>> + ? ?struct
>> + ? ?{
>> + ? ? ?unsigned int _pid;
>> + ? ? ?unsigned int _uid;
>> + ? ?} _kill;
>> +
>> + ? ?/* POSIX.1b timers */
>> + ? ?struct
>> + ? ?{
>> + ? ? ?compat_timer_t _tid;
>> + ? ? ?int _overrun;
>> + ? ? ?compat_sigval_t _sigval;
>> + ? ?} _timer;
>> +
>> + ? ?/* POSIX.1b signals */
>> + ? ?struct
>> + ? ?{
>> + ? ? ?unsigned int _pid;
>> + ? ? ?unsigned int _uid;
>> + ? ? ?compat_sigval_t _sigval;
>> + ? ?} _rt;
>> +
>> + ? ?/* SIGCHLD */
>> + ? ?struct
>> + ? ?{
>> + ? ? ?unsigned int _pid;
>> + ? ? ?unsigned int _uid;
>> + ? ? ?int _status;
>> + ? ? ?compat_x32_clock_t _utime;
>> + ? ? ?compat_x32_clock_t _stime;
>> + ? ?} _sigchld;
>> +
>> + ? ?/* SIGILL, SIGFPE, SIGSEGV, SIGBUS */
>> + ? ?struct
>> + ? ?{
>> + ? ? ?unsigned int _addr;
>> + ? ?} _sigfault;
>> +
>> + ? ?/* SIGPOLL */
>> + ? ?struct
>> + ? ?{
>> + ? ? ?int _band;
>> + ? ? ?int _fd;
>> + ? ?} _sigpoll;
>> + ?} _sifields;
>> +} compat_x32_siginfo_t __attribute__ ((__aligned__ (8)));
>
> Same here. ?I don't think you need alignment here, even with the broken ABI.
>
> If it really is too late to fix the X32 ABI, you'll have to write this
> portably by splitting _utime and _stime into two 32-bit variables and
> write code that correctly sets the upper and lower 32-bits.
>
>

X32 ABI choice is done on purpose.  X32 siginfo_t has

typedef long __attribute__ ((__aligned__ (4))) compat_x32_clock_t;

typedef struct compat_x32_siginfo
{
  int si_signo;
  int si_errno;
  int si_code;

  union
  {
...
    /* SIGCHLD */
    struct
    {
      unsigned int _pid;
      unsigned int _uid;
      int _status;
      compat_x32_clock_t _utime;
      compat_x32_clock_t _stime;
    } _sigchld;
...
} compat_x32_siginfo_t __attribute__ ((__aligned__ (8)));

struct info is aligned at 8 bytes and type of _utime/_stime is aligned
at 4 bytes.  However,  _utime offset is 3 * 4 + 3 * 4 == 24 bytes. So
in reality, the addresses of _utime/_stime are 8 bytes aligned.  There
are no needs to split _utime and _stime into two 32-bit variables
since their addresses are 64bits aligned.

Thanks.


-- 
H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]