From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21902 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2010 18:31:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 21875 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jun 2010 18:31:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:31:28 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C82028002; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50D3CCD918; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C0D3AFE.9020400@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:31:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090609) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] fix crasher on detach command References: <4C0D3636.8040206@vmware.com> <201006071928.19374.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201006071928.19374.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00183.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On Monday 07 June 2010 19:11:02, Michael Snyder wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The circumstances are, detach from a remote target that doesn't have >> threads. Remote.c leaves the PID arbitrarily as "42000", and >> target_detach calls remove_breakpoints_pid, which crashes because >> find_inferior_pid returns NULL. > > It shouldn't matter that the PID is arbitrary; there should be an > inferior with that PID in the inferior list. This probably means > that the inferior got its PID cleared to 0 already when you get here? > How? It was a bad connect, which aborted part way through. So yes, we're in an inconsistent internal state. > What's the backtrace like at the time of the crash? I assume > the remove_breakpoints_pid call is coming from within target_detach? It's fairly normal, target_detach is called by detach_command.