From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Michal Lesniewski <m.lesniewski@samsung.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, "'Yao Qi'" <yao@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: Implementation of different software breakpoint kinds in gdb server
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:01:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <507FEF69.4030008@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000101cdad25$e3eda550$abc8eff0$%lesniewski@samsung.com>
On 10/18/2012 12:44 PM, Michal Lesniewski wrote:
> On 10/18/2012 12:09 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> Extending mem-break.c is not the big problem, IMO.
>
> But we'd probably have to change its interface a bit. So there would be also
> changes needed in the architecture specific files like linux-*-low.c.
> However, these changes would probably trivial for most architectures because
> usually there is only one kind of trap instructions.
Right.
>
>> The RSP already supports this, with the mode encoded in the "size" field
> of the z0 packet.
>
> That's right, but the RSP does not support specifying kinds/sizes in the
> QTDP packets, which are used for adding tracepoints, but that's a different
> story. I added a enhancement request on bugzilla today, maybe there will be
> some feedback: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14740
Ah, didn't see it. Most of the people that would probably respond
there are already in CC here. :-P
Right. Although we've revamped the tracepoints support not that long
ago (making it actually useful), the tracepoint packets are quite old,
and that wasn't considered originally (even the encoding of mode/kind in the
size/length field of z0 is recent). QTDP supports optional extensions, but
it probably best to take a look at all the packets that are affected before
deciding how to extended QTDP.
>
>> So we'd need to teach gdbserver to software single-step. Maybe it's
> possible to tell offline all the possible destinations of an instruction, so
> we could still leave that logic in gdb, but I suspect not.
>
> It's generally not possible. Of course, some instructions can never cause a
> branch, so in these cases we could safely set the "reinsert-breakpoint" at
> the next instruction. But some branch instructions read the branch
> destination from a register. In this case we can only evaluate the next PC
> value when the breakpoint is hit.
>
> Teaching gdbserver to single-step shouldn't be too hard. As you mentioned,
> the logic is already there in gdb. I even found the code to do this in
> arm-tdep.c (e.g. arm_get_next_pc). We could use it as a base to implement it
> in gdbserver, but we would have some code duplication.
It's not the next_pc bits per se, but the run control stuff that always
gets tricky. Well, every time I think touching run control stuff in either
gdb or gdbserver shouldn't be hard, I spend long whiles head banging.
Maybe it's just me. :-)
It'd be nice to avoid the duplication, though that might not be easy.
>> I don't know whether the current kernel can already do all that for us?
> (perf, uprobes, etc?)
>
> I tried uprobes, but it works in a different way. Instead of single
> stepping, uprobes simulates (or emulates) the instruction, which was
> replaced by the breakpoint. (It executes the instruction out-of-line and
> jumps back to the original code. If this is not possible, it just looks at
> the original instruction and modifies the registers and memory itself. This
> solution has the advantage that it doesn't need to stop other threads while
> one thread is single-stepping). Anyway, as far as I know uprobes does not
> work on ARM yet.
Thanks.
Looking forward to all this.
--
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-18 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-18 9:23 Michal Lesniewski
2012-10-18 10:08 ` Pedro Alves
2012-10-18 10:28 ` Yao Qi
2012-10-18 10:42 ` Pedro Alves
2012-10-18 11:44 ` Michal Lesniewski
2012-10-18 12:01 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2012-10-19 0:31 ` John Gilmore
2012-10-19 8:51 ` Michal Lesniewski
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=507FEF69.4030008@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=m.lesniewski@samsung.com \
--cc=yao@codesourcery.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).