public inbox for gdb-patches@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: [PATCH] [gdb/python] Make gdb.UnwindInfo.add_saved_register more robust
Date: Sat,  2 Mar 2024 13:36:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240302123653.16923-1-tdevries@suse.de> (raw)

On arm-linux, until commit bbb12eb9c84 ("gdb/arm: Remove tpidruro register
from non-FreeBSD target descriptions") I ran into:
...
FAIL: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 5: \
  backtrace when the unwind is broken at frame 5
...

What happens is the following:
- the TestUnwinder from inline-frame-cycle-unwind.py calls
  gdb.UnwindInfo.add_saved_register with reg == tpidruro and value
  "<unavailable>",
- pyuw_sniffer calls value->contents ().data () to access the value of the
  register, which throws an UNAVAILABLE_ERROR,
- this causes the TestUnwinder unwinder to fail, after which another unwinder
  succeeds and returns the correct frame, and
- the test-case fails because it's counting on the TestUnwinder to succeed and
  return an incorrect frame.

Fix this by checking for !value::entirely_available as well as
valued::optimized_out in unwind_infopy_add_saved_register.

Tested on x86_64-linux and arm-linux.

PR python/31437
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31437
---
 gdb/python/py-unwind.c | 12 ++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gdb/python/py-unwind.c b/gdb/python/py-unwind.c
index 56f925bc57f..1c1289f7e7d 100644
--- a/gdb/python/py-unwind.c
+++ b/gdb/python/py-unwind.c
@@ -362,6 +362,18 @@ unwind_infopy_add_saved_register (PyObject *self, PyObject *args, PyObject *kw)
       return nullptr;
     }
 
+  if (value->optimized_out () || !value->entirely_available ())
+    {
+      /* If we allow this value to be registered here, pyuw_sniffer is going
+	 to run into an exception when trying to access its contents.
+	 Throwing an exception here just puts a burden on the user to
+	 implement the same checks on the user side.  We could return False
+	 here and True otherwise, but again that might require changes in user
+	 code.  So, handle this with minimal impact for the user, while
+	 improving robustness: silently ignore the register/value pair.  */
+      Py_RETURN_NONE;
+    }
+
   gdbpy_ref<> new_value = gdbpy_ref<>::new_reference (pyo_reg_value);
   bool found = false;
   for (saved_reg &reg : *unwind_info->saved_regs)

base-commit: a6a3b67fa9052bba81ed91a38569c11ecb95baf1
-- 
2.35.3


             reply	other threads:[~2024-03-02 12:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-02 12:36 Tom de Vries [this message]
2024-03-19  9:34 ` [PING][PATCH] " Tom de Vries
2024-05-08  8:54   ` [PING^2][PATCH] " Tom de Vries
2024-05-08 12:02 ` [PATCH] " Andrew Burgess
2024-05-08 15:52 ` Tom Tromey
2024-05-09 10:03   ` Tom de Vries

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=20240302123653.16923-1-tdevries@suse.de \
    --to=tdevries@suse.de \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    /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).