Re: [PATCH] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.

Luis Machado
2017-01-12T16:29:09Z

On 12/28/2016 11:37 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 09:07:07 AM Vasil Dimov wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 13:03:27 -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I have tried changing fbsd_wait() to return a TARGET_WAITKIND_SPURIOUS
>>> instead of explicitly continuing the process, but that doesn't help, and it
>>> means that the ptid being returned is still T1 in that case.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if I should explicitly be calling delete_exited_threads() in
>>> fbsd_resume() before calling iterate_threads()? Alternatively, fbsd_resume()
>>> could use ALL_NONEXITED_THREADS() instead of iterate_threads() (it isn't
>>> clear to me which of these is preferred since both are in use).
>>>
>>> I added the assertion for my own sanity. I suspect gdb should never try to
>>> invoke target_resume() with a ptid of an exited thread, but if for some
>>> reason it did the effect on FreeBSD would be a hang since we would suspend
>>> all the other threads and when the process was continued via PT_CONTINUE it
>>> would have nothing to do and would never return from wait(). I'd rather have
>>> gdb fail an assertion in that case rather than hang.
>> [...]
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am not sure if this is related, but since I get a hang I would rather
>> mention it: with the John's patch (including the assert) gdb does not
>> emit the "ptrace: No such process" error, but when I attempt to quit,
>> it hangs:
>
> No, this is a separate bug in the kernel whereby a process doesn't
> treat PT_KILL as a detach-like event but incorrectly expects to keep
> getting PT_CONTINUE events for a while until it finally exits. I'm
> working on writing up regression/unit tests for PT_KILL and then
> fixing the bug.
>

I think the patch is mainly papering over a bigger problem. My guess is
that the native fbsd backend is not doing something it should.

I'd check how linux-nat.c is doing things and then try to confirm the
fbsd behavior is sane.

For example, i noticed linux-nat.c has exit_lwp (...) that handles
deletion of both thread information and the thread itself (lwp). Even if
it is the currently-selected thread, we *will* get the lwp removed from
the list of existing lwp's.

It doesn't make sense to keep a thread that has already exitted in the
list of threads we are manipulating.