From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
To: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [gdb/build] Fix frame_list position in frame.c
Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 14:47:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ccea69e-7cce-9016-06a4-e63b3bf16a17@polymtl.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230503175826.4242-1-tdevries@suse.de>
On 5/3/23 13:58, Tom de Vries wrote:
> In commit 995a34b1772 ("Guard against frame.c destructors running before
> frame-info.c's") the following problem was addressed.
>
> The frame_info_ptr destructor:
> ...
> ~frame_info_ptr ()
> {
> frame_list.erase (frame_list.iterator_to (*this));
> }
> ...
> uses frame_list, which is a static member of class frame_info_ptr,
> instantiated in frame-info.c:
> ...
> intrusive_list<frame_info_ptr> frame_info_ptr::frame_list;
> ...
>
> Then there's a static frame_info_pointer variable named selected_frame in
> frame.c:
> ...
> static frame_info_ptr selected_frame;
> ...
>
> Because the destructor of selected_frame uses frame_list, its destructor needs
> to be called before the destructor of frame_list.
>
> But because they're in different compilation units, the initialization order and
> consequently destruction order is not guarantueed.
>
> The commit fixed this by handling the case that the destructor of frame_list
> is called first, adding a check on is_linked ():
> ...
> ~frame_info_ptr ()
> {
> - frame_list.erase (frame_list.iterator_to (*this));
> + /* If this node has static storage, it may be deleted after
> + frame_list. Attempting to erase ourselves would then trigger
> + internal errors, so make sure we are still linked first. */
> + if (is_linked ())
> + frame_list.erase (frame_list.iterator_to (*this));
> }
> ...
>
> However, since then frame_list has been moved into frame.c, and
> initialization/destruction order is guarantueed inside a compilation unit.
>
> Revert aforementioned commit, and fix the destruction order problem by moving
> frame_list before selected_frame.
>
> Reverting the commit is another way of fixing the already fixed
> Wdangling-pointer warning reported in PR build/30413, in a different way than
> commit 9b0ccb1ebae ("Pass const frame_info_ptr reference for
> skip_[language_]trampoline").
>
> Tested on x86_64-linux.
>
> PR build/30413
> Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30413
> ---
> gdb/frame.c | 11 +++++++----
> gdb/frame.h | 9 ++++-----
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/frame.c b/gdb/frame.c
> index 36fb02f3c8e..531eadf3d54 100644
> --- a/gdb/frame.c
> +++ b/gdb/frame.c
> @@ -1733,6 +1733,13 @@ get_current_frame (void)
> static frame_id selected_frame_id = null_frame_id;
> static int selected_frame_level = -1;
>
> +/* See frame.h. This definition should come before any definition of a static
> + frame_info_ptr, to ensure that frame_list is destroyed after any static
> + frame_info_ptr. This is necessary because the destructor of frame_info_ptr
Spurious double space.
> + uses frame_list. */
> +
> +intrusive_list<frame_info_ptr> frame_info_ptr::frame_list;
> +
> /* The cached frame_info object pointing to the selected frame.
> Looked up on demand by get_selected_frame. */
> static frame_info_ptr selected_frame;
> @@ -3275,10 +3282,6 @@ maintenance_print_frame_id (const char *args, int from_tty)
>
> /* See frame-info-ptr.h. */
>
> -intrusive_list<frame_info_ptr> frame_info_ptr::frame_list;
> -
> -/* See frame-info-ptr.h. */
> -
> frame_info_ptr::frame_info_ptr (struct frame_info *ptr)
> : m_ptr (ptr)
> {
> diff --git a/gdb/frame.h b/gdb/frame.h
> index 6ed8db0af56..ed19dfdc090 100644
> --- a/gdb/frame.h
> +++ b/gdb/frame.h
> @@ -254,11 +254,10 @@ class frame_info_ptr : public intrusive_list_node<frame_info_ptr>
>
> ~frame_info_ptr ()
> {
> - /* If this node has static storage, it may be deleted after
> - frame_list. Attempting to erase ourselves would then trigger
> - internal errors, so make sure we are still linked first. */
> - if (is_linked ())
> - frame_list.erase (frame_list.iterator_to (*this));
> + /* If this node has static storage, it should be be deleted before
> + frame_list. Verify this by checking that it is still in the list. */
> + gdb_assert (is_linked ());
> + frame_list.erase (frame_list.iterator_to (*this));
The assert is a bit redundant with the assertions in
intrusive_list::erase_element:
gdb_assert (elem_node->prev != INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
gdb_assert (elem_node->next != INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
I would maybe remove the assert, but keep the comment (at least the
first sentence)?
In any case, this LGTM, thanks for doing this.
Approved-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
Simon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-03 18:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-03 17:58 Tom de Vries
2023-05-03 18:47 ` Simon Marchi [this message]
2023-05-03 19:45 ` Tom de Vries
2023-05-04 9:01 ` Kévin Le Gouguec
2023-05-04 9:12 ` 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=7ccea69e-7cce-9016-06a4-e63b3bf16a17@polymtl.ca \
--to=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=tdevries@suse.de \
/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).