From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: "Marcin Kościelnicki" <koriakin@0x04.net>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.trace: Remove struct tracepoint_action_ops.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:54:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56A60CD3.6060704@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1453577516-19252-1-git-send-email-koriakin@0x04.net>
On 01/23/2016 07:31 PM, Marcin KoÅcielnicki wrote:
> The struct tracepoint_action has an ops field, pointing to
> a tracepoint_action_ops structure, containing send and download ops.
> However, this field is only present when compiled in gdbserver, and not
> when compiled in IPA. When gdbserver is downloading tracepoint actions
> to IPA, it skips offsetof(struct tracepoint_action, type) bytes from
> its struct tracepoint_action, to get to the part that corresponds to
> IPA's struct tracepoint_action.
>
> Unfortunately, this fails badly on ILP32 platforms where alignof(long long)
> == 8. Consider struct collect_memory_action layout in gdbserver:
>
> 0-3: base.ops
> 4: base.type
> 8-15: addr
> 16-23: len
> 24-27: basereg
> sizeof == 32
>
> and its layout in IPA:
>
> 0: base.type
> 8-15: addr
> 16-23: len
> 24-27: basereg
> sizeof == 32
>
> When gdbserver tries to download it to IPA, it skips the first 4 bytes
> (base.ops), figuring the rest will match what IPA expects - which is
> not true, since addr is aligned to 8 bytes and will be at a different
> relative position to base.type.
>
> The problem went unnoticed on the currently supported platforms, since
> aarch64 and x86_64 have ops aligned to 8 bytes, and i386 has only 4-byte
> alignment for long long.
>
> There are a few possible ways around this problem. I decided on removing
> ops altogether, since they can be easily inlined in their (only) places
> of use - in fact allowing us share the code between 'L' and 'R'. Any
> approach where struct tracepoint_action is different between IPA and
> gdbserver is just asking for trouble.
>
> Found on s390. Tested on x86_64, s390, s390x.
Hmm, this is essentially the same as:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-03/msg00995.html
Right?
Seems that other patch inlines things a bit less though, which offhand
looks preferable. WDYT?
Not sure what happened to that series. I thought most of it (if not all)
had been approved already.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-25 11:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-23 19:32 Marcin Kościelnicki
2016-01-25 11:54 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2016-01-25 12:17 ` Marcin Kościelnicki
2016-01-29 13:11 ` Antoine Tremblay
2016-02-08 11:55 ` Marcin Kościelnicki
2016-01-29 10:14 ` Marcin Kościelnicki
2016-02-06 1:05 ` Marcin Kościelnicki
2016-02-08 13:05 ` Antoine Tremblay
2016-02-11 16:30 ` [PATCH] gdbserver: Remove tracepoint_action ops Marcin Kościelnicki
2016-02-11 16:50 ` Pedro Alves
2016-02-11 22:24 ` Marcin Kościelnicki
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=56A60CD3.6060704@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=koriakin@0x04.net \
/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