From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@arm.com>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>,
Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>,
Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>,
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] gdb: native target invalid architecture detection
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2022 23:21:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7308c0cc-1ced-1169-c65a-f1ae593b6d00@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d6c81f73-5206-d314-b43a-5ad6c36d7005@FreeBSD.org>
On 6/1/22 23:06, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 6/1/22 1:25 AM, Luis Machado wrote:
>> On 5/31/22 17:51, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>> John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/31/22 7:30 AM, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>>> If GDB is asked to start a new inferior, or attach to an existing
>>>>> process, using a binary file for an architecture that does not match
>>>>> the current native target, then, currently, GDB will assert. Here's
>>>>> an example session using current HEAD of master with GDB built for an
>>>>> x86-64 GNU/Linux native target, the binary being used is a RISC-V ELF:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ ./gdb/gdb -q --data-directory ./gdb/data-directory/
>>>>> (gdb) file /tmp/hello.rv32imc.x
>>>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/hello.rv32imc.x...
>>>>> (gdb) start
>>>>> Temporary breakpoint 1 at 0x101b2: file hello.rv32.c, line 23.
>>>>> Starting program: /tmp/hello.rv32imc.x
>>>>> ../../src/gdb/gdbarch.h:166: internal-error: gdbarch_tdep:
>>>>> Assertion `dynamic_cast<TDepType *> (tdep) != nullptr' failed.
>>>>> A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
>>>>> further debugging may prove unreliable.
>>>>>
>>>>> The same error is encountered if, instead of starting a new inferior,
>>>>> the user tries to attach to an x86-64 process with a RISC-V binary set
>>>>> as the current executable.
>>>>>
>>>>> These errors are not specific to the x86-64/RISC-V pairing I'm using
>>>>> here, any attempt to use a binary for one architecture with a native
>>>>> target of a different architecture will result in a similar error.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly, attempting to use this cross-architecture combination is a
>>>>> user error, but I think GDB should do better than an assert; ideally a
>>>>> nice error should be printed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem we run into is that, when the user starts a new inferior,
>>>>> or attaches to an inferior, the inferior stops. At this point GDB
>>>>> attempts to handle the stop, and this involves reading registers from
>>>>> the inferior.
>>>>>
>>>>> These register reads end up being done through the native target, so
>>>>> in the example above, we end up in the amd64_supply_fxsave function.
>>>>> However, these functions need a gdbarch. The gdbarch is fetched from
>>>>> the register set, which was constructed using the gdbarch from the
>>>>> binary currently in use. And so we end up in amd64_supply_fxsave
>>>>> using a RISC-V gdbarch.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we call:
>>>>>
>>>>> i386_gdbarch_tdep *tdep = gdbarch_tdep<i386_gdbarch_tdep>
>>>>> (gdbarch);
>>>>>
>>>>> this will assert as the gdbarch_tdep data within the RISC-V gdbarch is
>>>>> of the type riscv_gdbarch_tdep not i386_gdbarch_tdep.
>>>>>
>>>>> The solution I propose in this commit is to add a new target_ops
>>>>> method supports_architecture_p. This method will return true if a
>>>>> target can safely be used with a specific architecture, otherwise, the
>>>>> method returns false.
>>>>>
>>>>> I imagine that a result of true from this method doesn't guarantee
>>>>> that GDB can start an inferior of a given architecture, it just means
>>>>> that GDB will not crash if such an attempt is made. A result of false
>>>>> is a hard stop; attempting to use this target with this architecture
>>>>> is not supported, and may cause GDB to crash.
>>>>>
>>>>> This distinction is important I think for things like remote targets,
>>>>> and possibly simulator targets. We might imagine that GDB can ask a
>>>>> remote (or simulator) to start with a particular executable, and the
>>>>> target might still refuse for some reason. But my thinking is that
>>>>> these refusals should be well handled (i.e. GDB should give a user
>>>>> friendly error), rather than crashing, as is the case with the native
>>>>> targets.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, if I start gdbserver on an x86-64 machine like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> gdbserver --multi :54321
>>>>>
>>>>> Then make use of this from a GDB session like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ ./gdb/gdb -q --data-directory ./gdb/data-directory/
>>>>> (gdb) file /tmp/hello.rv32imc.x
>>>>> Reading symbols from /tmp/hello.rv32imc.x...
>>>>> (gdb) target extended-remote :54321
>>>>> Remote debugging using :54321
>>>>> (gdb) run
>>>>> Starting program: /tmp/hello.rv32imc.x
>>>>> Running the default executable on the remote target failed;
>>>>> try "set remote exec-file"?
>>>>> (gdb)
>>>>>
>>>>> Though the error is not very helpful in diagnosing the problem, we can
>>>>> see that GDB has not crashed, but has given the user an error.
>>>>>
>>>>> And so, the supports_architecture_p method is created to return true
>>>>> by default, then I override this in inf_child_target, where I compare
>>>>> the architecture in question with the default_bfd_arch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, I've added calls to supports_architecture_p for the
>>>>> run (which covers run, start, starti) and attach commands.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will notice a lack of tests for this change. I'm not sure of a
>>>>> good way that I can build a binary for a different architecture as
>>>>> part of a test, but if anyone has any ideas then I'll be happy to add
>>>>> a test here.
>>>>
>>>> Have you considered multi-arch cases such as running i386 binaries
>>>> on an x86-64
>>>> host or 32-bit arm binaries on an AArch64 host? Will we need to
>>>> override this
>>>> method in certain targets (e.g. x86-linux-nat.c or x86-fbsd-nat.c)
>>>> to support
>>>> such cases?
>>>
>>> For the x86 examples you gave, I think these all have the bfd_arch_i386
>>> bfd architecture, so should work just fine.
>>>
>>> But for the aarch64 case, I admit I don't know how this works. A 32-bit
>>> ARM binary is going to have bfd_arch_arm, while the AArch64 target will
>>> be expecting a gdbarch with bfd_arch_aarch64. But how GDB supports
>>> running the former on the latter, I don't know.
>>>
>>> I notice there's aarch64-linux-nat.c and aarch32-linux-nat.c, I wonder
>>> if this has something to do with it...
>>
>> aarch32 is the 32-bit state of aarch64, but the BFD architecture is
>> different. So this won't work out-of-the-box.
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe someone with more ARM/AArch64 knowledge will chip in to fill in
>>> some of the blanks.
>>
>> When attempting to run a 32-bit binary in 64-bit state, I get...
>>
>> The target does not support architecture "armv7".
>
> Does Linux support running 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit aarch64 host?
>
Yes. For instance one can start a docker container in aarch32 (32-bit)
mode on a aarch64 host (provided the CPU supports both modes, which is
not always the case)
Christophe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-01 21:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 83+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-31 14:30 [PATCH 0/5] Handle trying to use a native target with the wrong binary Andrew Burgess
2022-05-31 14:30 ` [PATCH 1/5] gdb/arm: move fetch of arm_gdbarch_tdep to a more inner scope Andrew Burgess
2022-06-01 7:58 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-31 14:30 ` [PATCH 2/5] gdb/mips: rewrite show_mask_address Andrew Burgess
2022-05-31 14:30 ` [PATCH 3/5] gdb: move the type cast into gdbarch_tdep Andrew Burgess
2022-06-01 8:01 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-31 14:30 ` [PATCH 4/5] gdb: ensure the cast in gdbarch_tdep is valid Andrew Burgess
2022-05-31 16:04 ` John Baldwin
2022-05-31 17:22 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-05-31 14:30 ` [PATCH 5/5] gdb: native target invalid architecture detection Andrew Burgess
2022-05-31 16:08 ` John Baldwin
2022-05-31 16:51 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-01 8:25 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-01 21:06 ` John Baldwin
2022-06-01 21:21 ` Christophe Lyon [this message]
2022-06-02 14:56 ` John Baldwin
2022-06-06 14:38 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-06 17:48 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-07 11:03 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-07 18:42 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-07 20:15 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-08 8:18 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-08 10:17 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-08 7:54 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-08 10:12 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-08 11:20 ` [PATCH v2] aarch64: Add fallback if ARM_CC_FOR_TARGET not set (was: Re: [PATCH 5/5] gdb: native target invalid architecture detection) Pedro Alves
2022-06-08 12:50 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-08 13:23 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-08 13:38 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-08 19:01 ` John Baldwin
2022-06-08 21:48 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-09 16:31 ` John Baldwin
2022-06-10 13:08 ` [PATCHv2 0/6] Handle trying to use a native target with the wrong binary Andrew Burgess
2022-06-10 13:08 ` [PATCHv2 1/6] gdb/arm: move fetch of arm_gdbarch_tdep to a more inner scope Andrew Burgess
2022-06-10 13:08 ` [PATCHv2 2/6] gdb/mips: rewrite show_mask_address Andrew Burgess
2022-06-10 13:08 ` [PATCHv2 3/6] gdb/arm: avoid undefined behaviour in arm_frame_is_thumb Andrew Burgess
2022-06-10 15:21 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-10 15:49 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-10 16:29 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-10 13:08 ` [PATCHv2 4/6] gdb: move the type cast into gdbarch_tdep Andrew Burgess
2022-06-10 16:35 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-10 13:08 ` [PATCHv2 5/6] gdb: ensure the cast in gdbarch_tdep is valid Andrew Burgess
2022-06-10 13:08 ` [PATCHv2 6/6] gdb: native target invalid architecture detection Andrew Burgess
2022-06-10 16:20 ` John Baldwin
2022-06-10 16:31 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-13 16:15 ` [PATCHv3 0/6] Handle trying to use a native target with the wrong binary Andrew Burgess
2022-06-13 16:15 ` [PATCHv3 1/6] gdb/arm: move fetch of arm_gdbarch_tdep to a more inner scope Andrew Burgess
2022-06-13 16:15 ` [PATCHv3 2/6] gdb/mips: rewrite show_mask_address Andrew Burgess
2022-06-13 16:15 ` [PATCHv3 3/6] gdb: select suitable thread for gdbarch_adjust_breakpoint_address Andrew Burgess
2022-06-14 9:45 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-14 14:05 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-24 16:58 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-13 16:15 ` [PATCHv3 4/6] gdb: move the type cast into gdbarch_tdep Andrew Burgess
2022-06-13 16:15 ` [PATCHv3 5/6] gdb: ensure the cast in gdbarch_tdep is valid Andrew Burgess
2022-06-24 18:15 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-13 16:15 ` [PATCHv3 6/6] gdb: native target invalid architecture detection Andrew Burgess
2022-06-24 19:23 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-27 16:27 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-27 21:38 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-28 10:37 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-28 12:42 ` [PATCH v2] gdb+gdbserver/Linux: avoid reading registers while going through shell (was: Re: [PATCHv3 6/6] gdb: native target invalid architecture detection) Pedro Alves
2022-06-28 14:21 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-29 15:17 ` Simon Marchi
2022-06-29 16:22 ` [PATCH] Fix GDBserver regression due to change to avoid reading shell registers Pedro Alves
2022-06-29 16:38 ` Simon Marchi
2022-06-30 9:33 ` [PATCHv3 6/6] gdb: native target invalid architecture detection Andrew Burgess
2022-06-30 11:44 ` Pedro Alves
2022-07-11 10:47 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-24 10:15 ` [PATCHv3 0/6] Handle trying to use a native target with the wrong binary Andrew Burgess
2022-06-28 14:28 ` [PATCHv4 0/6] Detect invalid casts of gdbarch_tdep structures Andrew Burgess
2022-06-28 14:28 ` [PATCHv4 1/6] gdb/arm: move fetch of arm_gdbarch_tdep to a more inner scope Andrew Burgess
2022-06-28 14:28 ` [PATCHv4 2/6] gdb/mips: rewrite show_mask_address Andrew Burgess
2022-06-28 14:28 ` [PATCHv4 3/6] gdb: select suitable thread for gdbarch_adjust_breakpoint_address Andrew Burgess
2022-06-28 14:28 ` [PATCHv4 4/6] gdb: move the type cast into gdbarch_tdep Andrew Burgess
2022-06-28 14:28 ` [PATCHv4 5/6] gdbsupport: add checked_static_cast Andrew Burgess
2022-06-28 14:28 ` [PATCHv4 6/6] gdb: ensure the cast in gdbarch_tdep is valid Andrew Burgess
2022-07-11 10:46 ` [PATCHv4 0/6] Detect invalid casts of gdbarch_tdep structures Andrew Burgess
2022-07-21 18:21 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-07-22 0:50 ` Luis Machado
2022-07-23 0:02 ` [PATCH] Rename gdbarch_tdep template function to gdbarch_tdep_cast for g++ 4.8 Mark Wielaard
2022-07-25 11:19 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-07-25 11:27 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-07-26 11:05 ` Andrew Burgess
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=7308c0cc-1ced-1169-c65a-f1ae593b6d00@arm.com \
--to=christophe.lyon@arm.com \
--cc=aburgess@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jhb@FreeBSD.org \
--cc=luis.machado@arm.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).