From: Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>
To: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: relax requirement for the map_failed stap probe to be present
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 10:31:11 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9b1fe2f9-b4a9-17a8-1175-a1a776db1afc@simark.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <daf50f6f4ee3d18635d72cdbe5af189b85f3010b.1669129770.git.aburgess@redhat.com>
On 11/22/22 10:09, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote:
> From glibc 2.35 and later, the "map_failed" stap probe is no longer
> included in glibc. The removal of the probe looks like an accident,
> but it was caused by a glibc commit which meant that the "map_failed"
> probe could no longer be reached; the compiler than helpfully
> optimised out the probe.
>
> In GDB, in solib-svr4.c, we have a list of probes that we look for
> related to the shared library loading detection. If any of these
> probes are missing then GDB will fall back to the non-probe based
> mechanism for detecting shared library loading. The "map_failed"
> probe is include in the list of required probes.
>
> This means that on glibc 2.35 (or later) systems, GDB is going to
> always fall back to the non-probes based mechanism for detecting
> shared library loading.
>
> I raised a glibc bug to discuss this issue:
>
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29818
>
> But, whatever the ultimate decision from the glibc team, given there
> are version of glibc in the wild without the "map_failed" probe, we
> probably should update GDB to handle this situation.
>
> The "map_failed" probe is already a little strange, very early
> versions of glibc didn't include this probe, so, in some cases, if
> this probe is missing GDB is happy to ignore it. In this commit I
> just expand this logic to make the "map_failed" probe fully optional.
>
> With this commit in place, then, when using a glibc 2.35 or later
> system, GDB will once again use the stap probes for shared library
> detection.
> ---
> gdb/solib-svr4.c | 13 +++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/solib-svr4.c b/gdb/solib-svr4.c
> index 6acaf87960b..87cd06f251a 100644
> --- a/gdb/solib-svr4.c
> +++ b/gdb/solib-svr4.c
> @@ -2205,10 +2205,15 @@ svr4_find_and_create_probe_breakpoints (svr4_info *info,
>
> probes[i] = find_probes_in_objfile (os->objfile, "rtld", name);
>
> - /* The "map_failed" probe did not exist in early
> - versions of the probes code in which the probes'
> - names were prefixed with "rtld_". */
> - if (with_prefix && streq (name, "rtld_map_failed"))
> + /* The "map_failed" probe did not exist in early versions of the
> + probes code in which the probes' names were prefixed with
> + "rtld_".
> +
> + Additionally, the "map_failed" probe was accidentally removed
> + from glibc 2.35 and later, when changes in glibc meant the probe
> + could no longer be reached. In this case the probe name doesn't
> + have the "rtld_" prefix. */
> + if (streq (probe_info[i].name, "map_failed"))
> continue;
>
> /* Ensure at least one probe for the current name was found. */
>
> base-commit: 84f9fbe90e5429adb9dee68f04f44c92fa9e2345
> --
> 2.25.4
Hi,
I looked at this separately, and this was one of the fixes I considered.
Another option was to make GDB not give up on the probes interface if
failing to look up a probe whose action is DO_NOTHING. Probes with that
action are not used by GDB for solib bookkeeping, but can be used to
stop on solib events, with "set stop-on-solib-events". I was just
worried if there was some cases where a probe would be missing, but the
corresponding event could be caught if using the original interface. In
that case, using the probes interface would be a regression. But it's
probably not worth wondering about. If that happens it's just a bug
that needs to be fixed. In the case we are looking at, if the
map_failed probe gets optimized out, then surely the corresponding call
to the r_brk function would also be optimized out.
So, the patch LGTM:
Approved-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
Simon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-22 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-22 15:09 Andrew Burgess
2022-11-22 15:31 ` Simon Marchi [this message]
2022-11-24 10:46 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-11-24 15:10 ` Simon Marchi
2022-11-24 16:13 ` Lancelot SIX
2022-11-28 15:47 ` Pedro Alves
2022-11-28 17:18 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-11-29 8:27 ` Luis Machado
2022-11-29 8:38 ` Luis Machado
2022-12-05 10:09 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-12-05 10:27 ` Luis Machado
2022-12-05 12:04 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-12-05 12:55 ` Luis Machado
2022-11-22 15:33 ` Lancelot SIX
2022-11-24 11:39 ` 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=9b1fe2f9-b4a9-17a8-1175-a1a776db1afc@simark.ca \
--to=simark@simark.ca \
--cc=aburgess@redhat.com \
--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).