RE: [PATCH] gdbserver: Install single-step breakpoint for a pending thread whose last_resume_kind is resume_step

Yan, Zhiyong
2023-07-12T02:34:06Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4753 bytes --]

Hi Kevin,
My last mail's attachment is a little big, I am not sure if you can receive it. I zipped the log, and send again.

- For "format nit", I will work on it again.

- For your concern "I'd like to understand the situation better before approving it.",
Please check attached " step5-assert.txt".
Attached step5-assert.txt is a debug log which contains several "gdb step next" output.
For example, at line 29, resume_one_thread() doesn't call process_one_lwp() because thread LWP 316.316 is pending, as a result the software breaking point is not installed. Later, if this pending thread makes "wait_1: Hit a non-gdbserver trap event." happen, stop_all_lwps() -> "prepare_resume_reply: Writing resume reply for" ->...
In such case, "gdb N" can finish without assert error.
But in step5-assert.txt, from line 14923 to 14943, we can see the pending thread make below happen,
"
wait_for_event_filtered: Got a pending child 316
362.994099 [threads] wait_for_event_filtered: Got an event from pending child 316 (117f)
362.994379 [threads] wait_1: Ignored signal 17 for LWP 316
"
In this case "resume_stopped_resumed_lwps" will resume every 'stopped-resumed' thread, but a thread (previously pending) has no software break point installed, then resume_stopped_resumed_lwps() asserts failed in maybe_hw_step().

Best Regards.
Zhiyong

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 2:43 AM
To: Yan, Zhiyong <Zhiyong.Yan@windriver.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org; tom@tromey.com; luis.machado@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdbserver: Install single-step breakpoint for a pending thread whose last_resume_kind is resume_step

CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Zhiyong,

See my comments below; there's still one formatting nit, but I also have a question about whether this is the right place to fix the bug that you're seeing.

Also, I've added Luis to the CC list since he knows a lot more about the ARM architecture than I do.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 11:04:58 +0800
<zhiyong.yan@windriver.com> wrote:

> From: Zhiyong Yan <zhiyong.yan@windriver.com>
>
> Gdb should not assume pending threads always generate "a non-gdbserver trap event", for example "Signal 17" event could happen. Now that resume_stopped_resumed_lwps() -> may_hw_step() assumes that the break point must already exist, resume_one_thread() should ensure the software breaking point is installed although the thread is pending.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhiyong Yan zhiyong.yan@windriver.com
> Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30387
> ---
> gdbserver/linux-low.cc | 11 ++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdbserver/linux-low.cc b/gdbserver/linux-low.cc index
> e6a39202a98..7d8bbf71ddc 100644
> --- a/gdbserver/linux-low.cc
> +++ b/gdbserver/linux-low.cc
> @@ -4671,7 +4671,16 @@ linux_process_target::resume_one_thread (thread_info *thread,
> proceed_one_lwp (thread, NULL);
> }
> else
> - threads_debug_printf ("leaving LWP %ld stopped", lwpid_of (thread));
> + {
> + threads_debug_printf ("leaving LWP %ld stopped", lwpid_of (thread));
> + if (thread->last_resume_kind == resume_step)
> + {
> + /* If resume_step is required by GDB,
> + install single-step breakpoint. */
> + if (supports_software_single_step())

Formatting nit: you need a space between 'supports_software_single_step'
and the left paren.

> + install_software_single_step_breakpoints (lwp);
> + }
> + }
>
> thread->last_status.set_ignore ();
> lwp->resume = NULL;

With regard to the change itself...

If the debugging printf is accurate, the LWP is being left in a stopped state. If that's the case, then why are software single step breakpoints being inserted? It seems to me that you'd only want to insert these breakpoints when the thread is actually about to resume.

That said, I have no doubt that this change works for you, so clearly there's something going on which I do not understand. I'd like to understand the situation better before approving it. Also, once you have an explanation, please update the code comments and/or commit log message as appropriate. My personal preference is for a concise explanation to be placed in the code comments with any additional, longer winded explanations or examples being placed in the commit log message.

Kevin

[-- Attachment #2: step5-assert.zip --]
[-- Type: application/x-zip-compressed, Size: 126847 bytes --]