From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Josh Stone <jistone@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be, sergiodj@redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org,
xdje42@gmail.com, scox@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Implement 'catch syscall' for gdbserver
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:22:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56955283.1060502@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56954F8C.6010100@redhat.com>
On 01/12/2016 07:10 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 04:05 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 01/09/2016 03:09 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2016-01-08 Josh Stone <jistone@redhat.com>
>>> Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>
>>>
>>> * gdb.texinfo (Remote Configuration): List the QCatchSyscalls packet.
>>> (Stop Reply Packets): List the syscall entry and return stop reasons.
>>> (General Query Packets): Describe QCatchSyscalls, and add it to the
>>> table and detailed list of stub features.
>>>
>>
>> "table of detailed", I think.
>
> I'm referring to two hunks:
> - the table: Feature Name / Value Required / Default / Probe Allowed
> - the list below it, "currently defined stub features, in more detail"
>
> Maybe I just need another article, "to the table and the detailed list"
Ah. Yes, that way I think wouldn't have been confused.
>
>>> @@ -648,6 +658,12 @@ handle_extended_wait (struct lwp_info **orig_event_lwp, int wstat)
>>> event_thr->last_resume_kind = resume_continue;
>>> event_thr->last_status.kind = TARGET_WAITKIND_IGNORE;
>>>
>>> + /* Update syscall state in the new lwp, effectively mid-syscall too.
>>> + The client really should send a new list to catch, in case the
>>> + architecture changed, but for ANY_SYSCALL it doesn't matter. */
>>> + event_lwp->syscall_state = TARGET_WAITKIND_SYSCALL_ENTRY;
>>> + proc->syscalls_to_catch = syscalls_to_catch;
>>
>> The tone of this comment sounds to me as if the client should always
>> send a new list, just in case, but for some odd reason it sometimes doesn't.
>>
>> I think we want to convey the opposite, like:
>>
>> /* Update syscall state in the new lwp, effectively mid-syscall too. */
>> event_lwp->syscall_state = TARGET_WAITKIND_SYSCALL_ENTRY;
>>
>> /* Restore the list to catch. Don't rely on the client, which is free
>> to avoid sending a new list when the architecture doesn't change.
>> Also, for ANY_SYSCALL, the architecture doesn't really matter. */
>> proc->syscalls_to_catch = syscalls_to_catch;
>
> Sure, I'll take your rewrite verbatim, if you don't mind.
Certainly don't mind.
>
>>> static int
>>> +linux_supports_catch_syscall (void)
>>> +{
>>> + return (the_low_target.get_syscall_trapinfo != NULL
>>> + && linux_supports_tracesysgood());
>>
>> Space: "linux_supports_tracesysgood ()"
>
> OK
>
>>> +proc test_catch_syscall_execve {} {
>>> + global gdb_prompt decimal
>>> +
>>> + with_test_prefix "execve" {
>>> +
>>> + # Tell the test program we want an execve.
>>> + gdb_test_no_output "set do_execve = 1"
>>> +
>>> + # Check for entry/return across the execve, making sure that the
>>> + # syscall_state isn't lost when turning into a new process.
>>> + insert_catch_syscall_with_arg "execve"
>>> + check_continue "execve"
>>> +
>>> + # Remotes that don't track exec may report the raw SIGTRAP for it.
>>> + # If we use stepi now, we'll get a consistent trap for all targets.
>>> + gdb_test "stepi" ".*" "step after execve"
>>
>> Why is it important to do this raw SIGTRAP handling? What happens if you don't
>> do this? Won't those targets already FAIL the check_continue tests?
>
> Just in case, the context from Linux man ptrace:
>
> If the PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC option is not in effect for the execing
> tracee, and if the tracee was PTRACE_ATTACHed rather that
> PTRACE_SEIZEd, the kernel delivers an extra SIGTRAP to the tracee
> after execve(2) returns. This is an ordinary signal (similar to
> one which can be generated by kill -TRAP), not a special kind of
> ptrace-stop.
>
> Since that's a signal-stop *after* execve returns, the check_continue
> will have succeeded already.
Still can't see how that step would help -- check_continue does two
"continue"s. So one would stop at the random SIGTRAP, and FAIL,
and another would lose control of the inferior, probably running
to end.
>
> The check_continue is really the only bit I care about for this test
> anyway. The rest is just trying to finish the target process cleanly.
> I was having trouble matching consistent output since plain remote was
> getting that SIGTRAP, but extended-remote would use exec events and not
> report anything extra. Adding the stepi made both stop the same way.
>
> This is moot now, since plain remotes are now tracking exec events too.
> I developed this test just before that went in last month. :)
> I just tried with that stepi commented out, and the test still passes on
> local, remote, and extended-remote, so I'll remove it.
OK, yes, let's drop it then. :-)
Patch is OK with these changes, BTW.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-12 19:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-30 11:02 [PATCH] " Josh Stone
2015-10-30 13:26 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-11-01 22:15 ` Doug Evans
2015-11-02 18:24 ` Josh Stone
2015-11-21 10:29 ` Philippe Waroquiers
2015-11-23 4:20 ` Doug Evans
2015-11-23 4:20 ` Doug Evans
2015-11-25 2:37 ` Josh Stone
2015-11-26 2:53 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] gdbserver: Set Linux ptrace options ASAP Josh Stone
2015-11-26 2:54 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] Implement 'catch syscall' for gdbserver Josh Stone
2015-11-26 10:34 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] gdbserver: Set Linux ptrace options ASAP Pedro Alves
2015-11-30 18:50 ` Josh Stone
2015-12-01 20:17 ` Josh Stone
2015-12-02 14:01 ` Pedro Alves
2015-12-04 2:26 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] gdbserver: set ptrace flags after creating inferiors Josh Stone
2015-12-04 2:27 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] Implement 'catch syscall' for gdbserver Josh Stone
2015-12-04 8:45 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-12-05 2:14 ` Josh Stone
2015-12-05 8:02 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-12-07 16:50 ` Josh Stone
2015-12-07 17:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-12-04 13:18 ` Pedro Alves
2015-12-05 2:16 ` Josh Stone
2015-12-08 13:31 ` Pedro Alves
2015-12-08 19:02 ` Josh Stone
2015-12-08 13:37 ` Pedro Alves
2015-12-11 21:19 ` Josh Stone
2015-12-16 15:42 ` Pedro Alves
2016-01-09 3:09 ` [PATCH v4] " Josh Stone
2016-01-09 7:37 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-01-11 17:44 ` Philippe Waroquiers
2016-01-12 12:05 ` Pedro Alves
2016-01-12 19:10 ` Josh Stone
2016-01-12 19:22 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2016-01-12 20:01 ` Josh Stone
2016-03-29 14:27 ` Yao Qi
2016-03-29 18:12 ` Josh Stone
2016-03-29 23:49 ` Josh Stone
2016-03-30 12:23 ` Yao Qi
2016-03-31 1:10 ` Josh Stone
2016-04-01 13:05 ` Yao Qi
2016-04-01 16:38 ` Josh Stone
2016-05-29 16:47 ` [doc] NEWS: QCatchSyscalls: simplify Jan Kratochvil
2016-05-29 17:29 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-05-29 17:50 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-05-29 18:19 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-05-29 18:47 ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil
2015-12-04 12:16 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] gdbserver: set ptrace flags after creating inferiors Pedro Alves
2015-12-05 2:14 ` Josh Stone
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=56955283.1060502@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jistone@redhat.com \
--cc=philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be \
--cc=scox@redhat.com \
--cc=sergiodj@redhat.com \
--cc=xdje42@gmail.com \
/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).