From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Fix crash on i386 (%gs-)threaded programs using execve(2)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:03:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060724190332.GA13612@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060722123102.GA1936@lace.redhat.com>
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 02:31:02PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> please commit if appropriate:
>
> Created the attached minimal patch fixing the gdb lockup.
>
> 2006-07-22 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
>
> * linux-thread-db.c (thread_db_wait): Avoid locking up on stale
> threading state after TARGET_WAITKIND_EXECD.
Thanks. I've committed the attached version; I played around with it a
little bit, and discovered that you couldn't re-run unless you remember
to remove the thread breakpoints too.
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:44:21 +0200, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> ...
> > Turning on MAY_FOLLOW_EXEC is not a good idea. No one really knows how
> > that behavior works, a lot of it doesn't, and the way it implicitly
> > changes the symbol file is very disorienting. Please don't mix it up
> > with the fix for your current bug.
>
> Still I am for MAY_FOLLOW_EXEC as it improves the user experience and makes
> debugging of exec()ing processes much more convenient - without having to find
> out how each child gets executed and replay such conditions by hand.
>
> As gdb-6.5 has been released and the MAY_FOLLOW_EXEC feature IMO generally
> works for GNU/Linux - isn't appropriate to enable it and settle it down?
> I would even like to fix any issues possibly roaring its head.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this? I'm starting to think you're
right - we should turn it on, invite people to use it, and see what
happens.
The reason I find it so disorienting is this:
% gdb file1
(gdb) run
[starts file1]
[file1 execs file2]
[file2 exits]
(gdb) run
[file2 starts instead of file1!]
I don't know if it should do that or not. I tend to use "run" a lot
and want to get back to the beginning of my debug session.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
2006-07-24 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>
* linux-thread-db.c (thread_db_wait): Remove libthread_db
after exec events.
Index: linux-thread-db.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/linux-thread-db.c,v
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -u -p -r1.17 linux-thread-db.c
--- linux-thread-db.c 18 Jul 2006 22:53:20 -0000 1.17
+++ linux-thread-db.c 24 Jul 2006 18:56:24 -0000
@@ -875,6 +875,15 @@ thread_db_wait (ptid_t ptid, struct targ
if (ourstatus->kind == TARGET_WAITKIND_EXITED)
return pid_to_ptid (-1);
+ if (ourstatus->kind == TARGET_WAITKIND_EXECD)
+ {
+ remove_thread_event_breakpoints ();
+ unpush_target (&thread_db_ops);
+ using_thread_db = 0;
+
+ return pid_to_ptid (GET_PID (ptid));
+ }
+
if (ourstatus->kind == TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED
&& ourstatus->value.sig == TARGET_SIGNAL_TRAP)
/* Check for a thread event. */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-07-24 19:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-14 10:55 Jan Kratochvil
2006-06-14 14:25 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-06-15 20:36 ` Jan Kratochvil
2006-07-21 18:16 ` Jan Kratochvil
2006-07-21 18:44 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-07-22 12:31 ` Jan Kratochvil
2006-07-24 19:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2006-07-29 18:54 ` [patch] Linux MAY_FOLLOW_EXEC #2 [Re: RFC: Fix crash on i386 (%gs-)threaded programs using execve(2)] Jan Kratochvil
2006-07-31 20:39 ` Mark Kettenis
2006-08-05 16:43 ` [patch] Linux MAY_FOLLOW_EXEC #2 Jan Kratochvil
2006-08-08 16:01 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
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=20060724190332.GA13612@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.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