Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Remove breakpoint step-over information if failed to resume

[Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>]

On 2019-11-06 3:52 p.m., Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Complement commit 31e77af205cf ("PR breakpoints/7143 - Watchpoint does 
> not trigger when first set") and commit 71d378ae60a4 
> ("gdb.base/breakpoint-in-ro-region.exp regression on sss targets (PR 
> gdb/22583)") and also remove breakpoint step-over information if the 
> inferior has failed to resume, which may be due to for example a failure 
> to insert a software breakpoint at an inaccessible location.  If this 
> happens, the state of GDB becomes inconsistent and further attempts to 
> start execution hang.
> 
> This was observed with a `riscv64-linux-gnu' cross-GDB and RISC-V/Linux 
> `gdbserver' being developed and an attempt to step over the `ret' aka 
> `c.jr ra' instruction where the value held in the `ra' aka `x1' register 
> and therefore the address of a software-stepping breakpoint to insert is 
> 0.  Here's a record of a remote debug session leading to the issue:
> 
> Sending packet: $vCont?#49...Packet received: vCont;c;C;t
> Packet vCont (verbose-resume) is supported
> Sending packet: $vCont;c:p23cb.-1#08...Packet received: T05swbreak:;02:20da080000000000;20:b807565515000000;thread:p23cb.23cb;core:3;
> Sending packet: $qXfer:libraries-svr4:read::0,1000#20...Packet received: l<library-list-svr4 version="1.0" main-lm="0x155556f160"><library name=".../sysroot/lib/ld-linux-riscv64-lp64d.so.1" lm="0x155556ea18" l_addr="0x1555556000" l_ld="0x155556de90"/><library name="linux-vdso.so.1" lm="0x155556f6f0" l_addr="0x1555570000" l_ld="0x1555570350"/></library-list-svr4>
> Sending packet: $X15555607b8,2:\202\200#2e...Packet received: OK
> Sending packet: $m15555607b8,2#07...Packet received: 8280
> Sending packet: $m15555607b8,2#07...Packet received: 8280
> Sending packet: $g#67...Packet received: 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[552 bytes omitted]
> Sending packet: $m0,40#2d...Packet received: E01
> Sending packet: $m0,1#fa...Packet received: E01
> Sending packet: $m0,40#2d...Packet received: E01
> Sending packet: $m0,1#fa...Packet received: E01
> Cannot access memory at address 0x0
> (gdb) stepi
> Sending packet: $m15555607b8,4#09...Packet received: 82802a87
> Sending packet: $m15555607b4,4#05...Packet received: 01452dbd
> ^Cremote_pass_ctrlc called
> remote_interrupt called
> ^Cremote_pass_ctrlc called
> Interrupted while waiting for the program.
> Give up waiting? (y or n) y
> Quit
> (gdb) 
> 
> As observed here the `stepi' command does not even attempt to reinsert 
> the breakpoint, let alone resume execution.
> 
> Correct the issue by making a call to clear global breakpoint step-over 
> from the exception catch clause in `resume'.
> 
> With the change applied further `stepi' commands correctly retry 
> breakpoint insertion:
> 
> (gdb) stepi
> Sending packet: $m15555607b8,4#09...Packet received: 82802a87
> Sending packet: $m15555607b4,4#05...Packet received: 01452dbd
> Sending packet: $m15555607b8,2#07...Packet received: 8280
> Sending packet: $m15555607b8,2#07...Packet received: 8280
> Sending packet: $m0,40#2d...Packet received: E01
> Sending packet: $m0,1#fa...Packet received: E01
> Sending packet: $m0,40#2d...Packet received: E01
> Sending packet: $m0,1#fa...Packet received: E01
> Cannot access memory at address 0x0
> (gdb)
> 
> and changing the value of the `pc' register so as not to point at a 
> `ret' instruction allows execution to be actually resumed.
> 
> 	gdb/
> 	* infrun.c (resume): Also call `clear_step_over_info' in the 
> 	`catch' clause.

That looks ok to me, but again, I'd prefer if Pedro could take a look.

Simon