Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
To: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>, Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] gdb/python: add Corefile.mapped_files method
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:21:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zfa26gxp.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <de21b43c-e3bd-4354-aace-bd3f50c1c64c@suse.de>

Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:

> On 10/3/25 21:15, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> Andrew> Add a new Corefile.mapped_files method which returns a list of
>> Andrew> gdb.CorefileMappedFile objects.
>> 
>> Andrew> Each gdb.CorefileMappedFile object represents a file that was mapped
>> Andrew> into the process when the core file was created.
>> 
>> Andrew> +  ** New Inferior.corefile attribute.  This read only attribute
>> Andrew> +     contains the gdb.Corefile object if a core file is loaded into
>> Andrew> +     the inferior, otherwise, this contains None.
>> 
>> This hunk is duplicated, it also appears in patch 1.
>> 
>> Other than that this looks good to me.
>> Approved-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
>
> Hi,
>
> Starting with this commit, I see:
> ...
> (gdb) check-build-ids^M
> Python Exception <class 'AssertionError'>: build-id mismatch for 
> /lib64/libc.so.6^M
> Error occurred in Python: build-id mismatch for /lib64/libc.so.6^M
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.python/py-corefile.exp: test mapped files data: 
> check-build-ids
> ...

So that test is checking that the build-ids of the objfiles that were
loaded match the build-ids pulled from the corefile.

For example, GDB should find a build-id for `/lib64/libc.so.6` in the
core file, then when GDB loads `/lib64/libc.so.6` an objfile is created,
we can also read the build-id via the objfile.

The failure tells us that for some reason these two methods to read the
build-id gave different results.

Now, `/lib64/libc.so.6` must have a build-id, otherwise the objfile
would return None for its build-id, and the check-build-ids command
would ignore this library and we shouldn't see an assert.

So for the assert to trigger one of these things must have happened:

  + Build-id is present in the core file, but GDB failed to extract it,
    or extracted the wrong data.  Resulting in either None, or a different
    build-id, or

  + Build-id is not present in the core file, GDB will return None for
    the build-id.

Of these two I suspect the second; for a period of time the GNU linker
was ... changed ... such that it no longer placed the build-id within
the first page of a generated ELF, as a result, the Linux kernel would
not include the build-id in core dumps.

We can check for the second case using:

  readelf -WS /lib64/libc.so.6 | grep build-id

The output will be something like:

  [ 2] .note.gnu.build-id NOTE            0000000000000370 000370 000024 00   A  0   0  4

It's the '000370' column we're interested in.  If this value is greater
than a page size, then GDB isn't going to be able to find the build-id.

You could try applying the patch below.  This isn't a real fix, but does
two things:

  1. Ignores any None build-id values pulled from the core file.  I
     suspect this will be enough to get the test passing for you, but
     the patch also does

  2. prints both build-ids if there is a mismatch.

Unfortunately just doing (1) isn't a long term fix as this would also
ignore the case where a bug in GDB means that we fail to find the
build-id.

So what I'm going to do is try to extend the test so that we can use
maybe readelf like I show above to check if GDB _should_ be able to find
the build-id, and only run the build-id check _if_ we think GDB should
be able to find the build-ids.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear if the patch resolves the failure for
you.  If it doesn't then I'm on completely the wrong path and will need
to rethink.

Thanks,
Andrew

---

diff --git i/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-corefile.py w/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-corefile.py
index cffd037a23b..979a0281d12 100644
--- i/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-corefile.py
+++ w/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-corefile.py
@@ -101,9 +101,12 @@ class CheckBuildIds(gdb.Command):
             p = pathlib.Path(m.filename).resolve()
             b = m.build_id
 
+            if b is None:
+                continue
+
             if p in path_to_build_id:
                 count += 1
-                assert path_to_build_id[p] == b, "build-id mismatch for %s" % p
+                assert path_to_build_id[p] == b, "build-id mismatch for %s; %s vs %s" % (p, path_to_build_id[p], b)
 
         assert count > 0, "no mapped files checked"
 


  reply	other threads:[~2025-10-07 12:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-02 16:03 [PATCH 0/3] Core file Python API Andrew Burgess
2025-09-02 16:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] gdb/python: introduce gdb.Corefile API Andrew Burgess
2025-09-02 16:26   ` Eli Zaretskii
2025-09-16 17:25   ` Tom Tromey
2025-09-23 13:50     ` Andrew Burgess
2025-09-02 16:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] gdb: make structured core file mappings processing global Andrew Burgess
2025-09-16 17:28   ` Tom Tromey
2025-09-02 16:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] gdb/python: add Corefile.mapped_files method Andrew Burgess
2025-09-16 17:54   ` Tom Tromey
2025-09-23 13:52     ` Andrew Burgess
2025-09-23 13:44 ` [PATCHv2 0/3] Core file Python API Andrew Burgess
2025-09-23 13:44   ` [PATCHv2 1/3] gdb/python: introduce gdb.Corefile API Andrew Burgess
2025-10-03 18:56     ` Tom Tromey
2025-10-06  8:54       ` Andrew Burgess
2025-10-06 15:39         ` Tom Tromey
2025-10-06 16:13           ` Andrew Burgess
2025-09-23 13:44   ` [PATCHv2 2/3] gdb: make structured core file mappings processing global Andrew Burgess
2025-10-13 13:57     ` Lancelot SIX
2025-10-13 14:37       ` Andrew Burgess
2025-10-13 15:16         ` Six, Lancelot
2025-10-14  9:12         ` Lancelot SIX
2025-09-23 13:44   ` [PATCHv2 3/3] gdb/python: add Corefile.mapped_files method Andrew Burgess
2025-10-03 19:15     ` Tom Tromey
2025-10-07  6:24       ` Tom de Vries
2025-10-07 12:21         ` Andrew Burgess [this message]
2025-10-07 13:08           ` Tom de Vries
2025-10-07 13:26             ` Andrew Burgess
2025-10-07 14:38               ` Andrew Burgess
2025-10-07 15:43                 ` Tom de Vries
2025-10-07 16:28                   ` Andrew Burgess
2025-10-08  9:29                     ` Andrew Burgess
2025-10-08 10:36                       ` Tom de Vries
2025-10-08 14:14                         ` Andrew Burgess
2025-10-08 15:43                           ` Tom de Vries
2025-10-08 16:03                             ` Andrew Burgess
2025-10-16 20:00           ` Tom Tromey
2025-10-17 10:02             ` Andrew Burgess
2025-10-17 13:32               ` Andrew Burgess

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=87zfa26gxp.fsf@redhat.com \
    --to=aburgess@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=tdevries@suse.de \
    --cc=tom@tromey.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