[RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloaded shlibs
Jeff Johnston
jjohnstn@redhat.com
Wed Aug 11 20:12:00 GMT 2004
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 03:09:37PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>
>>The following patch fixes a problem with breakpoints set in shlibs that are
>>manually loaded/unloaded by the program. What currently happens is that
>>pending breakpoints work properly for the first run of the program. On the
>>2nd run, the resolved breakpoint(s) can end up at the start of the
>>breakpoint list and is marked bp_shlib_disabled. This is fine for a bit
>>and we reach the breakpoint again when the shared library is loaded.
>>However, when we unload the 2nd time, there is trouble. We eventually get
>>a shlib_event from the dlclose() and we attempt to remove the breakpoint to
>>step over it. Unfortunately, we try and remove all breakpoints and we end
>>attempting to remove a breakpoint that no longer exists (remember the
>>breakpoint for the shared library routine is now at the start of the
>>breakpoint list). We fail trying to remove the first breakpoint and end up
>>failing remove_breakpoints. We subsequently keep running into the
>>shlib_event breakpoint over and over again ad-infinitum.
>
>
> I couldn't quite follow your explanation of the problem, but FWIW your
> patch does make sense to me.
>
> Please check it for coding style problems; I noticed a lot of operators
> at the end of lines instead of the beginning of the next line.
>
Noted. Fixed in appended patch.
>
>>+#if defined (PC_SOLIB)
>>+ if (((b->type == bp_breakpoint) ||
>>+ (b->type == bp_hardware_breakpoint)) &&
>>+ breakpoint_enabled (b) &&
>>+ !b->loc->duplicate)
>
>
> You are just grabbing this from disable_breakpoints_in_shlibs, but the
> b->type check is not correct. Try
> (b->loc->type == bp_loc_hardware_breakpoint
> || b->loc->type == bp_loc_software_breakpoint)
>
Done.
> [Conceptually, you want any breakpoint which corresponds to a code
> address.]
>
> Can this code be commonized rather than duplicated?
>
I don't see much value; the code is small, the test is now different, the input
parameter is different, and there is resetting of the inserted flag.
>
>>+ {
>>+ char *so_name = PC_SOLIB (b->loc->address);
>>+ if (so_name &&
>>+ !strcmp (so_name, solib->so_name))
>>+ {
>>+ b->enable_state = bp_shlib_disabled;
>>+ b->loc->inserted = 0;
>
>
> Are we guaranteed that the breakpoint is not inserted right now? This
> is the only place in breakpoint.c that changes the inserted flag
> directly other than initialization, insertion, and a hack for exec
> following.
>
> If you expect that the library has already been unmapped, so removing
> it would fail, please add a comment saying so.
>
Putting remove_breakpoint() at that point does not work. I have put the
following comment:
+ /* At this point, we cannot rely on remove_breakpoint
+ succeeding so we must mark the breakpoint as not inserted
+ to prevent future errors occurring in remove_breakpoints. */
Ok?
-- Jeff J.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: unload.patch2
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20040811/9b977d9d/attachment.ksh>
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list