[Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed

["cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761

--- Comment #16 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Kevin Buettner <kevinb@sourceware.org>:

https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=63509715af867d635ad0e8cfe5a662bfc67b4ddf

commit 63509715af867d635ad0e8cfe5a662bfc67b4ddf
Author: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon Feb 27 16:11:37 2023 -0700

    Handle gdb SIGTERM by throwing / catching gdb_exception_force_quit

    When a GDB process receives the SIGTERM signal, handle_sigterm() in
    event-top.c is called.  The global variable 'sync_quit_force_run' is
    set by this signal handler.  It does some other things too, but the
    setting of this global is the important bit for the SIGTERM part of
    this discussion.

    GDB will periodically check to see whether a Ctrl-C or SIGTERM has
    been received.  This is performed via use of the QUIT macro in
    GDB's code.  QUIT is defined to invoke maybe_quit(), which will be
    periodically called during any lengthy operation.  This is supposed to
    ensure that the user won't have to wait too long for a Ctrl-C or
    SIGTERM to be acted upon.

    When a Ctrl-C / SIGINT is received, quit_handler() will decide whether
    to pass the SIGINT onto the inferior or to call quit() which causes
    gdb_exception_quit to be thrown.  This exception (usually) propagates
    to the top level.  Control is then returned to the top level event
    loop.

    At the moment, SIGTERM is handled very differently.  Instead of
    throwing an exception, quit_force() is called.  This does eventually
    cause GDB to exit(), but prior to that happening, the inferiors
    are killed or detached and other target related cleanup occurs.
    As shown in this discussion between Pedro Alves and myself...

    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-July/180802.html
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-July/180902.html
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-July/180903.html

    ...we found that it is possible for inferior_ptid and current_thread_
    to get out of sync.  When that happens, the "current_thread_ != nullptr"
    assertion in inferior_thread() can fail resulting in a GDB internal
    error.

    Pedro recommended that we "let the normal quit exception propagate all
    the way to the top level, and then have the top level call quit_force
    if sync_quit_force_run is set."  However, after the v2 series for this
    patch set, we tweaked that idea by introducing a new exception for
    handling SIGTERM.

    This commit implements the obvious part of Pedro's suggestion:
    Instead of calling quit_force from quit(), throw_forced_quit() is now
    called instead.  This causes the new exception 'gdb_exception_forced_quit'
    to be thrown.

    At the top level, I changed catch_command_errors() and captured_main()
    to catch gdb_exception_forced_quit and then call quit_force() from the
    catch block.  I also changed start_event_loop() to also catch
    gdb_exception_forced_quit; while we could also call quit_force() from
    that catch block, it's sufficient to simply rethrow the exception
    since it'll be caught by the newly added code in captured_main().

    Making these changes fixed the failure / regression that I was seeing
    for gdb.base/gdb-sigterm.exp when run on a machine with glibc-2.34.
    However, there are many other paths back to the top level which this
    test case does not test.  I did an audit of all of the try / catch
    code in GDB in which calls in the try-block might (eventually) call
    QUIT.  I found many cases where gdb_exception_quit and the new
    gdb_exception_forced_quit will be swallowed.  (When using GDB, have
    you ever hit Ctrl-C and not have it do anything; if so, it could be
    due to a swallowed gdb_exception_quit in one of the cases I've
    identified.)  The rest of the patches in this series deal with this
    concern.

    Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
    Tested-by: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
    Approved-by: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.