From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [96.47.72.81]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8633038418BE for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 21:06:33 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8633038418BE Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=FreeBSD.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3533993251; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 21:06:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4LD1sj0gFDz4jZV; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 21:06:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1654117593; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NwBWNzIWw6NQjPLjJKscaEGi2XkiBwASh0tMy1D2yhU=; b=MqPhairg+7tZ5WeXzOjXRdvy1ZQfuV7h26JtXHUlBQhEUZ3R8dUklY4tBXBZ9Oonzx9rhs KcBt5fK/hlREE5xyYamVctYb0aXlAAdRyjQ5oLGBm93PILgVgRp8gwHWm+bp5xpO2np6LJ Jx3+Unc3TzXBRHzGOUVnGtYwd8O1+WG1QGM83gqY6/OMUwFePuLl/WdMWRObQ7NkDd1Mhg lCR2AtaJrGHRtpByE3qqpPlP6qdL1QWiarL7m+yohqoRndj+yahMczKEWeA4k1jvMajW63 4Qiv+NmmWnbNZp0w8qe12D3oG8T1TkBK6MH94u2Jvw9jRQPIryiGghzEsZE4nQ== Received: from [IPV6:2601:648:8680:ed60:61ca:e5b:3600:f5d1] (unknown [IPv6:2601:648:8680:ed60:61ca:e5b:3600:f5d1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: jhb) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E892C877; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 21:06:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2022 14:06:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] gdb: native target invalid architecture detection Content-Language: en-US To: Luis Machado , Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <71a986a5-2cfa-543e-4034-70f3af7dfecf@FreeBSD.org> <87ee09d4rt.fsf@redhat.com> <09afe250-9573-45e1-993b-a2f911f03630@arm.com> From: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <09afe250-9573-45e1-993b-a2f911f03630@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1654117593; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NwBWNzIWw6NQjPLjJKscaEGi2XkiBwASh0tMy1D2yhU=; b=WAs2TnPNybEWaAhA15vt4YEWWQ0YBxeFORPu+tOGrIHwxFy4xZ8W7uGtL8ISZ71WFfKL+n jFHfuEjEbjWyPwOADcmDmoHb3VPeL5jfYPFXLYgkocoN6812e/wTVsWRNPqZRwU1UCMkQ9 QsvtQk7SLQKKpvMuxZy/Dcu83KW9t4In4lbETYlJxkpSX6qOXO9apKuKSaCWouUteolaqM nfEmiWpd92KpdQYiRxBiHA9l67VH/1FCv40hQwk7mBAK8J57pidh7OZNbBidAFqz00f1An VDfaimgWcuvQGOfAwC5lHaStUdALvaryReEFV5oyEhDpHWwWCk24hd4vkISA7g== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=dkim; d=freebsd.org; t=1654117593; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=g7g7zRWl7WV3sW2o69mo1OOZ6H0et799aoCvxSoNBDSBEjjkqliUnQ0RrTi1UNgeNLI3y3 ldqQretT0cI+5sjemYfol2qa8XVfMupW2lj2Guu9yelPbn+CJB1PYmVaUWhUgDEbJLERZb SDYu/4Hu+fJJGMO2APqwaEWJD+hIY2TE/a8YEvb0AhQCpqDVsszx2O6Urvr0ijowX+KjeE BCae2+JpYkLnCVVZjzA7rZVKUEfKaHuqUqzeWDZwQ8ka6KYdlvyyoca1VKtCjscVnOf3GP 0Qwdu5sF71BlH4gyz5sDZGS2Umg535LJFv3iO48HhClOfwXFDmBo0InYVQqiDw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2022 21:06:35 -0000 On 6/1/22 1:25 AM, Luis Machado wrote: > On 5/31/22 17:51, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote: >> John Baldwin 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 (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 (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? -- John Baldwin