Re: Remote query for structure layout

[David Blaikie <dblaikie@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 6:00 AM Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> wrote:
>
> On 2021-03-30 11:27 p.m., David Blaikie wrote:
> > (let me know if I'm just being an unhelpful bystander here - I clearly
> > don't have a lot of context)
>
> I think it is interesting.  If people are not interested they can just
> skip reading this thread :).
>
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:16 PM Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2021-03-30 6:44 p.m., David Blaikie wrote:
> >>> If it's "just" some user-code, is there a variable of the desired type being declared around the function call?
> >>
> >> AFAIK, this type wouldn't be used by the FreeRTOS code at all, so no.
> >> Again, here's my understanding, hopefully it's close enough to the
> >> reality.
> >>
> >> When a trap occurs, FreeRTOS saves the current task's register values on
> >> the task's stack, using some arch-specific assembly code.  For example,
> >> for RISC-V:
> >>
> >>     https://github.com/FreeRTOS/FreeRTOS-Kernel/blob/534eba66ce4a5bda45d5edeeb81ac5a3cf6d0df8/portable/GCC/RISC-V/portASM.S#L121
> >
> > Ah, OK. So this is part of signal handling - so it's not part of the
> > code that's compiled into the user's program, for instance... not even
> > in some system library linked in, necessarily, I guess?
>
> It is part of "user code".  Wih "big" OSes (e.g. Linux), the OS is
> compiled on its own and the user programs are compiled separately.  With
> embedded RTOSes (at least those I worked with), it's just one big
> program.  Your user code includes <FreeRTOS.h> and calls FreeRTOS
> functions to spawn to tasks.
>
> >> The way these registers are pushed is an implementation detail of
> >> FreeRTOS.  And we can imagine that it can vary depending on the
> >> compile-time FreeRTOS configuration,
> >
> > I guess in the worst case it could be totally dynamic - it could pick
> > a different layout each time.
>
> Yes, if it wanted to be really annoying :).
>
> > (guess a side question: How's this different from other systems? I
> > don't know how other/more common systems handle registers during
> > signals)
>
> I think Linux does the same, pushing the registers (and some information
> about the signal) on the thread's stack before calling a signal handler.
> The layout is defined by the ucontext structure, exposed in the Linux
> ABI:
>
>     https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/ucontext.h
>
> GDB hardcodes that layout here:
>
>     https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=gdb/riscv-linux-tdep.c;h=ca97a60128ffe681766e7e1600d3f24048bf1f68;hb=HEAD#l103
>
> Being exposed by the Linux kernel and part of this ABI, this structure
> is not likely to change.  That makes it reasonable to hardcode it.

Ah, fair enough - good to understand and compare/contrast.

> >> which OpenOCD doesn't know about.
> >>
> >> To get register values of scheduled out tasks, OpenOCD needs to
> >> interpret these register values from the tasks' stacks.
> >>
> >> So Tim's suggestion is: have FreeRTOS declare a structure that has the
> >> exact layout as the saved registers on the stack:
> >>
> >> struct freertos_saved_regs {
> >>   int x1;
> >>   int x5;
> >>   int x6;
> >>   ...
> >> };
> >>
> >> Consumers could read that structure's layout from the DWARF info, and
> >> read the register values based on that.  That would be a lot more robust
> >> than hard-coding in the consumers how FreeRTOS stores things.
> >
> > If practical experience has shown the hard-coding is not
> > stable/reliable (than FreeRTOS does change its strategy from time to
> > time - but it's always constant for any given build of the FreeRTOS) I
> > guess.
>
> My guess is that FreeRTOS does not change it that often, there's not
> reason to.  But it can vary from build to build due to compile-time
> configuration of FreeRTOS (i.e. include or exclude support for using
> some particular register).  An external observer such as OpenOCD does
> not have access to the compile-time configuration that was used to build
> FreeRTOS, so it's difficult to know what the layout used by this
> particular build is.

Fair enough.

> > But I'm not sure where FreeRTOS would expose this structure to user
> > code - it's not like there's a system library header that user code
> > must include...
>
> There is, any code using FreeRTOS will include FreeRTOS.h.

Oh, that helps a lot, then.

> You can see
> FreeRTOS more like a library than an OS.  FreeRTOS is not involved at
> all until the user program calls functions like xTaskCreate to create
> some tasks and calls vTaskStartScheduler to hand over control to
> FreeRTOS.

OK

> So if the structure was declared somewhere in the port's include file,
> it would necessarily be seen by some CUs (those that invoke FreeRTOS
> functions).

Great!

One possibly "cheap" way would be for FreeRTOS to use the structure in
C code to do the register stashing - rather than or in addition to/in
some kind of hybrid manner along with the assembly. If that's not
possible/would make the code harder to understand, then finding some
other way to pin the data structure into the DWARF would be needed.

I'd be inclined to avoid adding a new attribute or other feature
(though I wouldn't be entirely opposed to it - I can certainly think
of other places where it may be useful to have a "whenever the
compiler sees this type, ensure it makes it into the resulting DWARF
no matter what" attribute) if reasonably possible - instead finding
some lowest-common-denominator/highly reliable signal that compilers
use to emit type information.

The simplest such signal is a global variable of the type (not a
pointer to it, but of the type itself) - though probably has to be
annotated in some way that ensures the compiler won't optimize the
variable away even under LTO, etc. I'm not sure sure off-hand if I
have a great way to do that portably (non-portably I guess there's
various "exported" attributes that ensure the entity is visible even
beyond the shared library/executable scope, and thus can't be
optimized away - maybe such an attribute would be sufficiently
portable for FreeRTOS's needs (ie: no less portable than the rest of
the code already)).
If such a variable would be problematic (taking up space in the image,
etc) - maybe there's a way to ensure it through an extra nonce
parameter (if it's C++ code, a parameter with a default argument - so
the caller never has to think about it) to some core FreeRTOS function
that won't be optimized away/removed as unused/etc. Again, has a
runtime impact, though - maybe if it was zero-size (like a class
template specialization with no members) & with the type as a template
parameter /maybe/ that would suffice...

Happy to play around with mechanisms like that if it's of interest.

> >> However, since that struct would never actually be used by FreeRTOS'
> >> code, the compiler won't emit it.  Hence the need to find a way to force
> >> the compiler to include it in the DWARF.
> >>
> >> Does that clarify the situation?
> >
> > Somewhat - any lack of understanding is just my ignorance in this
> > field/area in general, to be clear. (I'm also not a core gdb
> > developer, so I'm not the sort of person you have to convince of
> > anything - just a curious bystander trying to understand/maybe offer
> > some insightful suggestions (I predominantly work on LLVM's debug info
> > emission, so that's my background/connection))
>
> Well, since it's related to debug info emission, it could land on your
> plate at some point, it's good that you have some context.