From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 83929 invoked by alias); 8 May 2015 14:47:49 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 83916 invoked by uid 89); 8 May 2015 14:47:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 May 2015 14:47:47 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-06.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.120]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1YqjZ2-0004wQ-4T from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Fri, 08 May 2015 07:47:44 -0700 Received: from [172.30.2.216] (147.34.91.1) by SVR-ORW-FEM-06.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 8 May 2015 07:47:43 -0700 Message-ID: <554CCC87.4030407@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 14:47:00 -0000 From: Luis Machado Reply-To: Luis Machado User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves , Yao Qi CC: Subject: Re: [rfc] Fix PR 18208: update /proc/pid/coredump_filter by c code References: <1429889336-12277-1-git-send-email-qiyaoltc@gmail.com> <554A3D61.8090302@redhat.com> <554A44B9.3090503@codesourcery.com> <86sib8vjtv.fsf@gmail.com> <554B4223.1000003@codesourcery.com> <554B702F.5090006@codesourcery.com> <554CCAC8.7080209@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <554CCAC8.7080209@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 On 05/08/2015 11:40 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 05/07/2015 03:01 PM, Luis Machado wrote: >> On 05/07/2015 07:44 AM, Luis Machado wrote: >>> On 05/07/2015 06:05 AM, Yao Qi wrote: >>>> Luis Machado writes: >>>> >>>>>>> -# Get the inferior's PID. >>>>>>> -set infpid "" >>>>>>> gdb_test_multiple "info inferiors" "getting inferior pid" { >>>>>>> - -re "process \($decimal\).*\r\n$gdb_prompt $" { >>>>>>> - set infpid $expect_out(1,string) >>>>>>> + -re "process $decimal.*\r\n$gdb_prompt $" { >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> -re "Remote target.*$gdb_prompt $" { >>>>>>> # If the target does not provide PID information (like >>>>>>> usermode QEMU), >>>>>> >>>>>> This "If the target does not provide PID information" check sounds >>>>>> odd now. Do we still need it? >>>>> >>>>> If we're not dealing with PID's, i don't think so. >>>> >>>> At the very start, I removed this block, but I recall that this block is >>>> used as a guard for usermode QEMU which doesn't provide PID >>>> information. With this patch applied, we'll access >>>> /proc/self/coredump_filter, but I am afraid it doesn't work as expected >>>> on usermode QEMU, because usermode QEMU just intercepts few /proc >>>> accesses and pass most of them through the host linux. Accessing >>>> /proc/QEMU_PID/coredump_filter isn't what we want in this test, so I >>>> think it's better to skip the test for usermode QEMU. >>>> >>>> Of course, I don't mind removing this block. Luis, could you try this >>>> patch and remove this block, see whether it causes fails on usermode >>>> QEMU? >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, that sounds problematic. I'll give it a try and will let you know. >> >> Removing that conditional block i get 14 FAIL's, so it doesn't look like >> this test is suited for usermode QEMU. > > But what does gdb.log show? > > With usermode QEMU, the program and qemu are the same process, thus > have the same PID. I just tried loading up the test's probably (manually > compiled) under F20's qemu-arm, generating a core with gcore, and then > loading the core back into gdb, which worked. > > I didn't test beyond that as I don't have a usermode qemu board > file handy (it'd be nice to have one in testsuite/boards/). > > I'm not immediately seeing the fundamental reason this shouldn't > have worked, and we may be hiding a bug instead. I'll have it reproduced again and will inspect the log. I recall seeing nonsense and random PC addresses that didn't point to proper symbols.