From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][fix the buildbot] gdb/solib-svr4: update default debug base in svr4_solib_ops::current_sos
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 20:50:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250829205023.6aa24f0c@f41-zbm-amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250829200538.2276767-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 16:05:27 -0400
simon.marchi@polymtl.ca wrote:
> From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
>
> Commit d33a66a31134 ("gdb/solib-svr4: fix wrong namespace id for dynamic
> linker") regressed test gdb.base/break-probes.exp with the native-gdbserver
> board:
>
> Running /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break-probes.exp ...
> FAIL: gdb.base/break-probes.exp: run til our library loads (the program exited)
> FAIL: gdb.base/break-probes.exp: call (int) foo(23)
>
> In the logs, we see this:
>
> Stopped due to shared library event:
> Inferior unloaded target:/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
> Inferior loaded target:/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
>
> When we should see this:
>
> Stopped due to shared library event (no libraries added or removed)
>
> In the unexpected output, GDB claims that the inferior unloaded and then
> loaded the dynamic linker. This is obviously not true.
>
> Commit d33a66a31134 changed the svr4_same function to consider the debug
> bases the solibs come from. Two solibs with the same inferior address but
> different debug base (such as the multiple solibs representing the dynamic
> linker in all the namespaces) now compare unequal.
>
> That commit also introduced a mechanism to update the debug base of an
> existing solib (more precisely, field lm_info_svr4::debug_base) when that
> value becomes known. The solib for the dynamic linker view in the default
> namespace starts with a debug base of 0, and is then changed to have the
> real debug base address later on.
>
> With the particular code path taken when connecting to a remote target,
> nothing triggers the update of the debug base of the dynamic linker solib
> initially created with a debug base of 0. So when
> svr4_solib_ops::current_sos returns a list with an solib for the dynamic
> linker with the real debug base value, the core sees this as an unload and
> a load.
>
> This happens specifically when debuggin remotely, because,
> svr4_solib_ops::current_sos_direct takes the "using_xfer" branch, which
> doesn't do any svr4_solib_ops::default_debug_base call. In local, we don't
> take that branch, which leads us to a call to default_debug_base.
>
> The way I propose to fix it is to add a call to
> svr4_solib_ops::default_debug_base at the beginning of
> svr4_solib_ops::current_sos. The rationale to put it there is that if the
> core is requesting a fresh list of libraries, and then compare that list
> with what it had previously, then we better make sure that the core's list
> has received the debug base update, if one is needed.
>
> Change-Id: If09c5a7b3d956e18d4b9514466226267c85f12a6
> ---
> gdb/solib-svr4.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/solib-svr4.c b/gdb/solib-svr4.c
> index 635e52a19877..58432b69a5d5 100644
> --- a/gdb/solib-svr4.c
> +++ b/gdb/solib-svr4.c
> @@ -1512,6 +1512,15 @@ owning_intrusive_list<solib>
> svr4_solib_ops::current_sos () const
> {
> svr4_info *info = get_svr4_info (current_program_space);
> +
> + /* Call this for the side-effect of updating the debug base in existing
> + solibs' lm_info_svr4, if needed. It is possible for the core to have
> + an solib with a stale lm_info_svr4::debug_base. In that case, we are
> + about to return the same solib, but with an updated debug_base. If we
> + didn't do this call, then it would appear as two different libraries to
> + the core, and it would appear as a spurious unload / load. */
> + this->default_debug_base (info);
> +
> owning_intrusive_list<solib> sos = this->current_sos_1 (info);
> struct mem_range vsyscall_range;
>
LGTM.
Approved-by: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-30 3:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-29 20:05 simon.marchi
2025-08-30 3:50 ` Kevin Buettner [this message]
2025-08-30 12:28 ` Simon Marchi
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=20250829205023.6aa24f0c@f41-zbm-amd \
--to=kevinb@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/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