Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for catching system calls to native FreeBSD targets.
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:24:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7374404.qtI4NAOGSQ@ralph.baldwin.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53d24aec-5588-ea4f-7d6d-085aca553457@redhat.com>

On Monday, June 20, 2016 11:56:40 PM Pedro Alves wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> This looks good to me.  Just some minor nits below.
> 
> On 06/14/2016 09:57 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > versions of FreeBSD include the identifier of the current
> > system call when reporting a system call entry or exit event in the
> > ptrace_lwpinfo structure obtained via PT_LWPINFO in fbsd_wait.  As
> > such, FreeBSD native targets do not use the gdbarch method to fetch
> > the system call code.  In addition, FreeBSD register sets fetched via
> > ptrace do not include an equivalent of 'orig_rax' (on amd64 for
> > example), so the system call code cannot be extracted from the
> > available registers during a system call exit.  However, GDB assumes
> > that system call catch points are not supported if the gdbarch method
> > is not present.  As a workaround, FreeBSD ABIs install a dummy gdbarch
> > method that throws an internal_error if it is ever invoked.
> > 
> 
> We should probably get rid of this gdbarch method, by making linux-nat.c
> (the only caller) call an arch-specific target_ops override instead of
> a gdbarch method, like gdbserver's equivalent code does.
> 
> To replace the break-catch-syscall.c error, I think that it'd be reasonable
> to remove it altogether, and for Linux targets that don't implement
> the gdbarch hook yet, instead just always intercept all syscalls, reporting
> an <unknown> syscall number.
> 
> But what you did seems like a reasonable thing to do as long as do
> have the gdbarch hook.  

So I'm not quite sure how to implement an arch-specific target_op.
There are various linux_nat_set_* functions that accept a function pointer
but then just set a global variable.  The amd64 version might have to copy
with different ABIs rather than depending on teh i386 gdbarch method, etc.

One option that is a bit smaller in scale would be to move the error
in break-catch-syscall.c into linux_child_set_syscall_catchpoint in
linux-nat.c.  It could return 1 to fail the request if the gdbarch
method wasn't present.

-- 
John Baldwin


  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-24  0:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-14 20:58 John Baldwin
2016-06-20 17:10 ` John Baldwin
2016-06-20 22:56 ` Pedro Alves
2016-06-24  0:24   ` John Baldwin [this message]
2016-06-24 15:52     ` Pedro Alves
2016-06-24 17:57       ` John Baldwin

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=7374404.qtI4NAOGSQ@ralph.baldwin.cx \
    --to=jhb@freebsd.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=palves@redhat.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