public inbox for gdb-patches@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
To: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: thiago.bauermann@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/16] [gdb/generic] corefile/bug: Fixup (gcore) core file target description reading order
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 09:49:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5b65717d-0a67-5f4c-e9ae-ff99cc00f369@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f5fb276c-1669-450a-ae1b-6b10528daa57@polymtl.ca>

On 9/8/23 18:10, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 9/7/23 11:20, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>> Due to the nature of the AArch64 SVE/SME extensions in GDB, each thread
>> can potentially have distinct target descriptions/gdbarches.
>>
>> When loading a gcore-generated core file, at the moment GDB gives priority
>> to the target description dumped to NT_GDB_TDESC.  Though technically correct
>> for most target, it doesn't work correctly for AArch64 with SVE or SME
>> support.
>>
>> The correct approach for AArch64/Linux is to rely on the
>> gdbarch_core_read_description hook, so it can figure out the proper target
>> description for a given thread based on the various available register notes.
>>
>> I think this should work for other architectures as well. If not, we may
>> need to adjust things so all architectures get the information that they
>> need for discovering the target description of the core file.
>>
>> Regression-tested on aarch64-linux Ubuntu 22.04/20.04.
>> ---
>>  gdb/corelow.c | 24 +++++++++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/corelow.c b/gdb/corelow.c
>> index 439270f5559..ae1641fe5d2 100644
>> --- a/gdb/corelow.c
>> +++ b/gdb/corelow.c
>> @@ -1229,6 +1229,21 @@ core_target::thread_alive (ptid_t ptid)
>>  const struct target_desc *
>>  core_target::read_description ()
>>  {
>> +  /* If the architecture provides a corefile target description hook, use
>> +     it now.  Even if the core file contains a target description in a note
>> +     section, it is not useful for targets that can potentially have distinct
>> +     descriptions for each thread.  One example is AArch64's SVE/SME
>> +     extensions that allow per-thread vector length changes, resulting in
>> +     registers with different sizes.  */
>> +  if (m_core_gdbarch && gdbarch_core_read_description_p (m_core_gdbarch))
>> +    {
>> +      const struct target_desc *result;
>> +
>> +      result = gdbarch_core_read_description (m_core_gdbarch, this, core_bfd);
>> +      if (result != nullptr)
>> +	return result;
>> +    }
>> +
>>    /* If the core file contains a target description note then we will use
>>       that in preference to anything else.  */
>>    bfd_size_type tdesc_note_size = 0;
>> @@ -1252,15 +1267,6 @@ core_target::read_description ()
>>  	}
>>      }
>>  
>> -  if (m_core_gdbarch && gdbarch_core_read_description_p (m_core_gdbarch))
>> -    {
>> -      const struct target_desc *result;
>> -
>> -      result = gdbarch_core_read_description (m_core_gdbarch, this, core_bfd);
>> -      if (result != NULL)
>> -	return result;
>> -    }
>> -
>>    return this->beneath ()->read_description ();
>>  }
> 
> I'm not convinced that this is right.  The current role of
> gdbarch_core_read_description (AFAIU) is to provide a fallback to the
> note method.  Usually, the note method is preferred, because it's
> precise, but if there's no note, maybe the gdbarch can derive a tdesc
> from what it sees in the core.  Naturally, this use of
> gdbarch_core_read_description (as a fallback) has to go after trying the
> note method.
> 
> Now, you want to to use gdbarch_core_read_description as an override to
> the note method, which is why you want to call it before trying the note
> method.  I don't think the same gdbarch method can be used for both
> fallback and override.  With your change, with an arch that defines a
> gdbarch_core_read_description hook, where we would have used the note
> before, we will now always use the hook.  Not what we want.

Yeah, it seems that way unfortunately. Looking back, maybe it would've been better to define the gdb tdesc note as a per-thread entry instead.

I suppose we can still do it from now on, but the previous core files generated by gdb would
still need to be handled in a special way for AArch64.

> 
> Some options I see:
> 
>  - Add another gdbarch hook, so one is called before trying the note,
>    and one after.
>  - Add another gdbarch hook that allows the arch to modify the target
>    desc read from the note.  So the flow would be:
>    core_target::read_description creates a target from the note, then
>    calls the gdbarch hook.  The latter could return the same tdesc, or a
>    new tdesc.  The AArch64 hook could then create a new tdesc based on
>    the one read from the note, but with the SVE/SME bits tweaked.

I think the first solution would work. But I see it as a temporary measure until we update the core file target description note to be per-thread.

After that, I believe the gdbarch hook wouldn't be too useful.

> 
> Simon


  reply	other threads:[~2023-09-12  8:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-09-07 15:20 [PATCH v5 00/16] SME support for AArch64 gdb/gdbserver on Linux Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 01/16] [gdb/aarch64] Fix register fetch/store order for native AArch64 Linux Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 02/16] [gdb/aarch64] refactor: Rename SVE-specific files Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 03/16] [gdb/gdbserver] refactor: Simplify SVE interface to read/write registers Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 04/16] [gdb/aarch64] sve: Fix return command when using V registers in a SVE-enabled target Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 05/16] [gdb/aarch64] sme: Enable SME registers and pseudo-registers Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 06/16] [gdbserver/aarch64] refactor: Adjust expedited registers dynamically Luis Machado
2023-09-08 15:35   ` Simon Marchi
2023-09-08 16:00     ` Luis Machado
2023-09-08 16:52       ` Simon Marchi
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 07/16] [gdbserver/aarch64] sme: Add support for SME Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 08/16] [gdb/aarch64] sve: Fix signal frame z/v register restore Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 09/16] [gdb/aarch64] sme: Signal frame support Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 10/16] [gdb/aarch64] sme: Fixup sigframe gdbarch when vg/svg changes Luis Machado
2023-09-08 11:08   ` Luis Machado
2023-09-08 15:48     ` Simon Marchi
2023-09-08 15:51       ` Simon Marchi
2023-09-08 15:51       ` Luis Machado
2023-09-08 15:59         ` Simon Marchi
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 11/16] [gdb/aarch64] sme: Support TPIDR2 signal frame context Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 12/16] [gdb/generic] corefile/bug: Use thread-specific gdbarch when dumping register state to core files Luis Machado
2023-09-08 11:09   ` Luis Machado
2023-09-08 15:58     ` Simon Marchi
2023-09-08 16:02       ` Simon Marchi
2023-09-08 16:05       ` Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 13/16] [gdb/generic] corefile/bug: Fixup (gcore) core file target description reading order Luis Machado
2023-09-08 11:10   ` Luis Machado
2023-09-08 17:10   ` Simon Marchi
2023-09-12  8:49     ` Luis Machado [this message]
2023-09-13 13:50       ` Simon Marchi
2023-09-13 13:57         ` Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 14/16] [gdb/aarch64] sme: Core file support for Linux Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 15/16] [gdb/testsuite] sme: Add SVE/SME testcases Luis Machado
2023-09-07 15:20 ` [PATCH v5 16/16] [gdb/docs] sme: Document SME registers and features Luis Machado
2023-09-13  3:03 ` [PATCH v5 00/16] SME support for AArch64 gdb/gdbserver on Linux Thiago Jung Bauermann
2023-09-13 10:20   ` Luis Machado

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=5b65717d-0a67-5f4c-e9ae-ff99cc00f369@arm.com \
    --to=luis.machado@arm.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
    --cc=thiago.bauermann@linaro.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).