Repro case! Re: GDB 10.1: Backtrace goes into infinite loop

[Paul Smith <psmith@gnu.org>]

Hi all.  I'm back!  I've still not seen this myself but someone
(finally!) provided me with a reproducible test case (see the quoted
message below for all details).  After examining it I am able to come
up with a repro case.

I've discovered that there's something wonky with the embedded Python
interpreter and checking threads while pretty-printing stack variables.
 If I don't load our custom Python macros (so that none of our pretty-
printers are defined) then GDB works fine.  If I load our macros,
Badness Happens.

FYI I'm linking Python 2.7.18 statically with GDB if that matters.

After spelunking my macros I've discovered that I can reproduce the
problem by replacing all our macros with one that does nothing but show
all threads.

Here is the stupid code I'm using:

// ----- foo.cpp
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <iostream>

class Foo
{
public:
    const char* s;
};

void foo(Foo& f)
{
    std::cout << f.s << "\n";
    abort();
}

int main(int argc, const char** argv)
{
    Foo f;
    f.s = argv[1] ? argv[1] : "hi";
    foo(f);
    return 0;
}
// -----

Then I do this:

$ g++ -g -ggdb3 -pthread -o foo foo.cpp

(-pthread is required!!)

Then I run it and get a core:

$ ./foo hiya
hiya
Aborted (core dumped)

Then if I run a simple GDB bt with no Python macros it's fine:

$ gdb -q -batch -ex 'bt' -c core.* foo
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1".
Core was generated by `./foo hiya'.
Program terminated with signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
#0  0x00007f28af56a18b in raise () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
#0  0x00007f28af56a18b in raise () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
#1  0x00007f28af549859 in abort () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
#2  0x000055e3b4dc4203 in foo (f=...) at foo.cpp:13
#3  0x000055e3b4dc4256 in main (argc=2, argv=0x7ffe1045c1c8) at foo.cpp:20

Now I add in a pretty-printer for the Foo class, with this file:

# ----- foo.py
import gdb

class SyncPrinter(object):
    def __init__(self, val): self.val = val

    def to_string(self):
        gdb.selected_inferior().threads()  # <---- NOTE!!
        return 'hello'

    def display_hint(self): return "Foo"

def mkpp():
    pp = gdb.printing.RegexpCollectionPrettyPrinter("test")
    pp.add_printer('Foo', r'^Foo$', SyncPrinter)
    return pp

gdb.printing.register_pretty_printer(gdb.current_objfile(),
                                     mkpp(), replace=True)
# ----- foo.py

Then I run GDB with this:

$ gdb -q -x foo.py -batch -ex 'bt' -c core.* foo

Now the backtrace loops quite a few times, then sometimes it finishes,
sometimes it dumps core with:

gdb/frame.c:2467: internal-error: bool get_frame_pc_if_available(frame_info*,
CORE_ADDR*): Assertion `frame->next != NULL' failed.

If I modify the pretty-printer to run gdb.selected_inferior() without
the threads() call, then it works again.

If anyone has any advice or thoughts I'm interested!!  Thx.


On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 17:16 -0500, Paul Smith via Gdb wrote:
> Hi all;
> 
> I just upgraded our users from a toolset using GCC 8.1.0, binutils
> 2.30, and GDB 8.2.1, to a new one using GCC 10.2, binutils 2.35.1, and
> GDB 10.1 (on GNU/Linux x86_64).
> 
> Now some of my users are running into a problem where they run the "bt"
> command and it shows some subset of the stack frames, then jumps back
> and starts over printing from frame 0, and does this forever until you
> use ^C to stop it.
> 
> Apparently this doesn't happen every time, and the number of frames
> that are shown are variable (but usually a smaller number like 2 to 5
> frames).  By "not every time" I mean after a breakpoint sometimes we
> get a good bt and sometimes it recurses, but if it recurses for a given
> bt it will always recurse (that is if you use ^C to stop then "bt"
> again it recurses again).
> 
> If we do the same thing with the older GDB (keeping the newer
> compiler/binutils) then we don't see this behavior.
> 
> FWIW, the code in question is C++ code and was compiled with -ggdb3 and
> no optimization.
> 
> Just wondering if anyone has seen something like this, and/or how to
> try to collect more details.
>