Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid software breakpoint's instruction shadow inconsistency
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:56:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5429C75C.3000309@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1409291950540.4971@tp.orcam.me.uk>

On 09/29/2014 08:11 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Pedro Alves wrote:

>> It doesn't look like to me that this is really the problem, since
>> default_memory_insert_breakpoint adjusts bp_tgt->placed_address
>> before reading memory.
> 
>  Not true (from `mips_breakpoint_from_pc'):
> 
> 	  insn = mips_fetch_instruction (gdbarch, ISA_MICROMIPS, pc, &status);
> 	  size = status ? 2
> 			: mips_insn_size (ISA_MICROMIPS, insn) == 2 ? 2 : 4;
>           *pcptr = unmake_compact_addr (pc);
> 
> (hmm, weird indentation here, will have to fix) -- as you can see 
> `mips_fetch_instruction' (that reads the instruction under `pc') is called 
> before the ISA bit is stripped as `pc' is written back to `*pcptr', and 
> `pc' has to have the ISA bit set for the reasons I stated in the last 
> mail.

Ah!  That's the part that I was missing.  I see now.

> 
>  Maybe I could work it around by writing `*pcptr' back first (and still 
> calling `mips_fetch_instruction' with the original `pc'), but that looks 
> hackish to me; first of all there is no contract in the API between the 
> implementation of `gdbarch_breakpoint_from_pc' and its callers that memory 
> behind `pcptr' is the address used for breakpoint shadowing.  I think the 
> data structures used for shadowing should simply be consistent all the 
> time.

Agreed.

So, we could fix this by not ever trying to re-insert a memory
breakpoint that has a shadow buffer.  But, if we ever decide
we want to record a shadow buffer for target-managed breakpoint
that ends up reinserted, we'll end up with the same problem again.

So might as well go with your patch.

>> would be unnecessary.
> 
>  But as I noted that breaks mips_breakpoint_from_pc, you must not 
> overwrite `placed_address' once the instruction shadow has been made.
> 

Indeed.

>> I could be missing something else, of course.

That's what I was missing...

Patch is OK.  Please push.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-09-29 20:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-09-23 17:08 Maciej W. Rozycki
2014-09-23 17:45 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-23 18:11   ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2014-09-23 18:34     ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2014-09-29 18:29     ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-29 19:12       ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2014-09-29 20:22         ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2014-09-29 20:56         ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2014-10-03 11:57           ` Maciej W. Rozycki

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=5429C75C.3000309@redhat.com \
    --to=palves@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=lgustavo@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=macro@codesourcery.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