From: Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com>
To: Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return unconditionally ptid.pid () in get_ptrace_pid() for NetBSD
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:45:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1d3657a6-acda-dc39-6fc0-5fa3befa4e27@gmx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a738a106-477d-ffb5-0682-5ea673fc8dd9@simark.ca>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4989 bytes --]
On 17.03.2020 20:00, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2020-03-17 1:45 p.m., Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 17.03.2020 17:39, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>> On 2020-03-17 12:30 p.m., Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>>> NetBSD tracks the PID and LWP pair separately and both values are
>>>> needed and meaningful.
>>>> ---
>>>> gdb/inf-ptrace.c | 6 +++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gdb/inf-ptrace.c b/gdb/inf-ptrace.c
>>>> index db17a76d946..6a6cb554ba7 100644
>>>> --- a/gdb/inf-ptrace.c
>>>> +++ b/gdb/inf-ptrace.c
>>>> @@ -321,10 +321,14 @@ get_ptrace_pid (ptid_t ptid)
>>>> {
>>>> pid_t pid;
>>>>
>>>> +#if !defined(__NetBSD__)
>>>> /* If we have an LWPID to work with, use it. Otherwise, we're
>>>> - dealing with a non-threaded program/target. */
>>>> + dealing with a non-threaded program/target.
>>>> +
>>>> + NetBSD tracks the PID and LWP pair separately. */
>>>> pid = ptid.lwp ();
>>>> if (pid == 0)
>>>> +#endif
>>>> pid = ptid.pid ();
>>>> return pid;
>>>> }
>>>> --
>>>> 2.25.0
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you should just avoid using get_ptrace_pid on NetBSD altogether, since
>>> it is meant for OSes that require passing a single thread identifier to ptrace
>>> (whereas NetBSD requires the (pid, lwp) pair).
>>>
>>> Even with this modification in get_ptrace_pid, you need to change all the ptrace
>>> call sites to pass the lwp on top of it.
>>>
>>> I would suggest to instead #ifdef out get_ptrace_pid entirely on NetBSD, to avoid
>>> using it by mistake, and just replace all ptrace call sites possibly used on BSD
>>> to be
>>>
>>> ptrace (request, ptid.pid (), addr, ptid.lwp ());
>>>
>>> This matches what I suggested in:
>>>
>>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-March/166735.html
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> Avoiding is possibly nice.. however in the current code it is much more
>> intrusive. We would need to patch now generic and OS/CPU specific code
>> (some of that is also shared with other OSs due to legacy reasons).
>>
>> I think it is much cleaner to return ptid. pid() for NetBSD and reflect
>> the meaning of get_ptrace_pid().
>>
>> If I follow your advice I end up with ifdefs like here:
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/inf-ptrace.c b/gdb/inf-ptrace.c
>> index b63a1bf88ef..a5d9c1d10ea 100644
>> --- a/gdb/inf-ptrace.c
>> +++ b/gdb/inf-ptrace.c
>> @@ -349,7 +349,11 @@ inf_ptrace_target::resume (ptid_t ptid, int step,
>> enum gdb_signal signal)
>> single-threaded processes, so simply resume the inferior. */
>> pid = inferior_ptid.pid ();
>> else
>> +#ifdef __NetBSD__
>> + pid = ptid. pid();
>> +#else
>> pid = get_ptrace_pid (ptid);
>> +#endif
>>
>> if (catch_syscall_enabled () > 0)
>> request = PT_SYSCALL;
>> @@ -533,7 +537,11 @@ inf_ptrace_target::xfer_partial (enum target_object
>> object,
>> const gdb_byte *writebuf,
>> ULONGEST offset, ULONGEST len, ULONGEST *xfered_len)
>> {
>> +#ifdef __NetBSD__
>> + pid_t pid = inferior_ptid. pid();
>> +#else
>> pid_t pid = get_ptrace_pid (inferior_ptid);
>> +#endif
>>
>> switch (object)
>> {
>
> I was thinking more about using a "gdb_ptrace" function in this file, as
> you have added in the other patch. The only ifdef would be in that function.
> get_ptrace_pid would only be used in the !__NetBSD__ branch of that function.
>
> inf_ptrace_target::xfer_partial and inf_ptrace_target::resume would just call
> gdb_ptrace, passing the right ptid.
>
>> Maintaining that will be certainly harder and it will be prone to
>> recurring regressions.
>>
>> If we want to take the route of cleanups and refactoring I think it
>> would be better to rethink the pid,lwp separation in Linux; but that is
>> much beyond the scope of my patches.
>
> I'm not sure what do mean by "rethink the pid,lwp separation in Linux".
>
Please disregard. Refactoring (and removal assumptions about specific
threading model) is out of scope of my patches.
>> Last but not least, get_ptrace_pid() would work now for NetBSD literally
>> as specified in the function name now... just extracting pid from ptid,
>> not calculating it from lwp/pid. It's now questionable whether a wrapper
>> function is still needed, but that would be optimized to .pid () in future.
>
> Yeah, but since NetBSD doesn't need get_ptrace_pid, I'd like if we could avoid
> making get_ptrace_pid more complex and if the ifdefs were concentrated around
> the ptrace calls (ideally, in as few spots possible, thanks to the gdb_ptrace
> functions).
>
> Simon
>
I've submitted a patch disabling get_ptrace_pid() for NetBSD and
switching in 2 places to ptid. pid()me file.
Not all ptrace(2) calls accept PID+LWP on NetBSD as here are calls that
work for the whole process such as DETACH, ATTACH, PT_SET_EVENT_MASK etc.
It's easier for now to go for this approach in the proposed patch.
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-18 16:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-17 16:30 Kamil Rytarowski
2020-03-17 16:39 ` Simon Marchi
2020-03-17 17:45 ` Kamil Rytarowski
2020-03-17 19:00 ` Simon Marchi
2020-03-18 16:45 ` Kamil Rytarowski [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1d3657a6-acda-dc39-6fc0-5fa3befa4e27@gmx.com \
--to=n54@gmx.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=simark@simark.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).